Leontius of Jerusalem Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae PATRICK T...
54 downloads
855 Views
2MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Leontius of Jerusalem Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae PATRICK T. R. GRAY
1
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS General Editor
LEONTIUS OF JERUSALEM
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS The series provides reliable working texts of important early Christian writers in both Greek and Latin. Each volume contains an introduction, text, and select critical apparatus, with English translations en face, and brief explanatory references. Other Titles in the Series Theodoret of Cyrus: Eranistes Edited by Gerard Ettlinger Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos Edited by Molly Whitaker Eunomius: The Exant Works Edited by Richard Vaggione Severus of Minorca: Letter on the Conversion of the Jews Edited by Scott Bradbury Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters Edited by Lionel R. Wickham Augustine: De Doctrina Christiana Edited by R. P. H. Green Augustine: De Bono Coniugali and De Sancta Virginitate Edited by P. G. Walsh Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil General Editor: Henry Chadwick
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Patrick T. R. Gray The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn ISBN –––
––––
PREFACE
Ever since the idea was first suggested to me by David Evans, at the opening reception of the Oxford Patristics Conference, I have wanted to publish an edition and translation of the longneglected but fascinating sixth-century theologian, Leontius of Jerusalem. Over the decades since then, Leontius and I have become better acquainted, as my Greek improved and my knowledge of the world in which he lived and played his part deepened. We reached an understanding about my distaste for his Against the Nestorians as my affection for Testimonies of the Saints grew ever greater. I feel fortunate that during the long gestation of this work there has been a flowering of interest in the sixth century, that amazing age of transition out of Late Antiquity into the Byzantine Period in the East, and into the Middle Ages in the West. In very recent times, the growth in interest in the church of Syria, and its vigorous anti-Chalcedonians, has been particularly noticeable. I trust the same interest will extend to the writings of the proChalcedonian Leontius, whose engagement in the works published here, one essentially negative, but the other remarkably positive, is with anti-Chalcedonian followers of the great Severus in Syria. Besides the friends and colleagues to whom this book is dedicated, I owe and gratefully offer thanks to the many people and institutions that have supported, encouraged, tolerated, and endured its long gestation. My interest in patristic christology, and particularly of the later fifth and the sixth century, was sparked in the library of Yale University, and by Jaroslav Pelikan, who taught me there; it grew into a passion at Trinity College, Toronto, encouraged by my thesis supervisor, the late Eugene Fairweather. Having discovered Leontius of Jerusalem (at first under the guise of Leontius of Byzantium) in that research, I began the present work with the support of the Killam Program, then of the Canada Council, by means of a Post-doctoral Scholarship which I
vi
held at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto. There I was introduced by the late Walter Hayes to the mysteries of Greek manuscripts and their edition. I owe much to him. The Institute has, over decades, been unfailingly generous in allowing me access to its collections, as has also the library of St Paul’s University in Ottawa. Valuable suggestions and encouragement came from many colleagues, including (besides those to whom this book is dedicated) notably the late Aloys Grillmeier, Luise Abramowski, Istvan Perczel, and Timothy Barnes. I was accompanied in the sometimes baffling task of translating Leontius by the spirit of François Combéfis who, through his hand-written Latin translation, often pointed the way to what a passage meant, and often comforted me, when I was faced by a difficult passage, by revealing through crossed-out attempts that he, too, had had a hard time of it! Marcel Richard was another giant from the past who came to my aid: Maurits Geerard, his literary executor, made available to me his unpublished work on the florilegia of Leontius of Jerusalem, without which identifying the ancient authors Leontius cites would have been an endless task. Assistance with the preparation of the text was ably provided by George Bevan, and by others. I am particularly in debt to those who have helped me with complex problems with Leontius’ Greek, but who prefer to remain anonymous. I am grateful to Henry Chadwick, who, as general editor of this series, encouraged me to submit this edition and translation for publication, and to my editor, Lucy Qureshi, who has been a delight to work with. Among those who have had to live under the shadow of Leontius, perhaps with some bewilderment, and have done so with a good grace, I must thank my sons Trevor, Ben, Tim, and Geoff, and my dear wife, Cathy.
CONTENTS
Abbreviations Introduction I. Little-Known Works of a Little-Known Writer II. Divided over History: The Background III. The Lessons of History IV. Testimonies of the Saints: The Argument for Reconciliation V. Testimonies of the Saints: Meeting the Charge of Dishonesty VI. Testimonies of the Saints: Severing Severians from Severus VII. Testimonies of the Saints: The Weight of the Fathers VIII. The Aporiae IX. The Theological Contribution X. Manuscripts, Editions, and Translations XI. Identity, Date, and Circumstances XII. The Corpus XIII. The Text Texts and Translations . Testimonies of the Saints . Aporiae Notes Appendix: The Argument of Testimonies of the Saints Summarized Select Bibliography Indexes Biblical Citations Patristic Citations Names Subjects
viii
ABBREVIATIONS
ACO
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (Berlin and Leipzig, –). BA Byzantina Australiensia (Brisbane, – ) BF Byzantinische Forschungen (Amsterdam, – ) BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig–Munich, – ) CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca (Turnhout, – ) CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout, – ) CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Louvain, – ) CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, – ) DOS Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Cambridge, Mass., – ) DSp Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique (Paris, –) DTC Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (Paris, –) EphThLov Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (Louvain, – ) FC The Fathers of the Church (New York, – ) FCLDG Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte (Paderborn, –) GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig, – ) HistJb Historisches Jahrbuch (Munich–Freiburg, – ) JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History (London, – ) JTS The Journal of Theological Studies (London, – ) MSR Mélanges de science religieuse (Lille, – ) OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, – ) OCP Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome, – ) OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, – ) OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta (Louvain, – ) PG Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, –) PL Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, –) PO Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, – ) RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (Louvain, – )
RSR SC SHCT StudPat SVTQ Trad TRE TU
ix
Recherches de science religieuse (Paris, – ) Sources Chrétiennes (Paris, – ) Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden, – ) Studia Patristica (Berlin, – ) St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (Crestwood, NY, – ) Traditio. Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion (New York, – ) Theologische Realenyclopädie (Berlin, – ) Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig–Berlin, – )
This book is dedicated to three friends and colleagues: David Evans, Michael Herren, and the late Maurits Geerard. Without their stimulation, support, and encouragement, it would not have been started, pursued, or finished.
INTRODUCTION
. - - Two little-known and little-studied short works by the sixthcentury theologian Leontius of Jerusalem1—Testimonies of the Saints, and Aporiae2—are presented here in the first complete edition ever made from the oldest and only textually significant manuscript, and the first accompanied by a modern-language translation.3 It is no surprise that these two works have remained in obscurity until now. For one thing, the ‘age of the church fathers’, involving the articulation of catholic Christianity in church and creed, has frequently and persistently been seen as simply ending in with the Council of Chalcedon. For another, the emerging Byzantine East has not had the intrinsic interest for western scholars of western Europe’s parallel emergence; fellow representatives of the sixth century in the West, such as Boethius and the Venerable Bede, are popular enough to appear routinely on reading-lists for university courses, and in paperback translations, but not so any contemporary representative of the East, least of all Leontius. Part of such a way of looking at things is the suspicion that the quarrels that consumed the eastern church after Chalcedon for Fl. –. See sect. XI below. The individuality of these works was hidden by the blanket title, Against the Monophysites, which disguises what the text’s previous editor, A. Mai, knew perfectly well but did not clearly indicate, that we actually have two works here: the manuscript’s descriptions of each work are separated by the equivalent of a semicolon, and a space of eight lines is left between the two works, perhaps meant to be filled by a title which a rubricator forgot to supply. The complete corpus of extant works of Leontius, appearing, however, under the name of his contemporary, Leontius of Byzantium, is usually found in J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae graecae cursus completus, lxxxvi1 (Paris, ), –i (Against the Nestorians) and lxxxvi2 (Paris, ), –A (Against the Monophysites = Aporiae, –, and Testimonies of the Saints, – ). 3 On previous editions, see sect. X below. 1 2
some eighty years before Leontius involved himself in them were the product of the over-subtle Greek mind, relating to issues of no real consequence to anyone other than the theologians concerned, and certainly not deserving serious historical or theological analysis—presuming that anyone could make sense of this impenetrable tangle of arguments. Another part of it is western suspicion of the attempt, styled neo-Chalcedonianism, of which Leontius was a part along with the Emperor Justinian, to find an accommodation with the anti-Chalcedonian schismatics traditionally, but misleadingly, dismissed as ‘Monophysite’ heretics; to many western scholars, that accommodation meant compromising the authority and the orthodox teaching of Chalcedon and of Pope Leo ‘the Great’, whose Tome was taken to have informed Chalcedon’s statement of faith. To make matters worse, these two works by Leontius belong to genres (the first is a sort of ‘commented florilegium’ or, more accurately, series of florilegia, and the second a collection of aporiae) that are not likely to be familiar to anyone but specialists, and which seem at first sight to justify the charge of over-subtlety. Florilegia—literally ‘bouquets of texts’— tend to be dismissed by moderns as at best tedious catalogues of dry proof-texts, and at worst, when full of misquotations and forgeries—as Leontius’ florilegia tend to be—sad examples of an author’s poor scholarship. Aporiae—logical arguments designed to show the unacceptable implications, or ‘impasses’, into which an opponent’s position leads him if strictly analysed—tend to be dismissed as no more than logic-chopping rhetorical display with little real relevance. It was no help that the way in which the Leontine corpus was transmitted from ancient times doomed them to obscurity of a different kind for several centuries.4 Finally, while the one other extant work of Leontius—Against the Nestorians—recently engaged the passionate interest of the pre-eminent specialist on the history of christology of our times, Aloys Grillmeier, in his monumental history of christology, Grillmeier left Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae entirely to one side; his interest in the development of christological concepts and language quite rightly found no original contribution of that sort in them.5 Testimonies of the Saints is, admittedly, not a particularly original work in terms of concepts and terminology, but there is no 4 5
On the years in obscurity, see sect. X below. On Grillmeier see sect. IX below.
-
intrinsic reason why only such works should be of historical interest. As it happens, Testimonies of the Saints represents, instead, a different kind of initiative of very considerable historical interest, an initiative designed to engage a specific group of antiChalcedonian churchmen, not high-level theologians, and to convince them, at their own level, that the arguments they give for dividing themselves from the official Church are groundless.6 Aporiae makes no positive contribution to terminology, either, being concerned only with exposing the inadequacy of its opponents’ terminology, but that in itself is a matter of historical interest. What is also significant about both works of Leontius here— perhaps particularly significant precisely because of their lack of originality in conceptual terms—is what they show us about how theological argument itself was being transformed in this period. The fact that Testimonies of the Saints is addressed to a popular rather than an advanced audience gives us a remarkable opportunity to understand how the controversy over Chalcedon divided the Church, and how the issues were being understood in the s on both sides, for Leontius cites and addresses a whole series of anti-Chalcedonian concerns in a conversational, giveand-take style.7 It is clear that Leontius, a monk of Palestine, was addressing, not the Church at large, but anti-Chalcedonian churchmen in neighbouring Syria who considered Severus of Antioch their teacher. Testimonies of the Saints therefore allows us to see just how the case for restoring the schismatics’ union with the official Church that Justinian was so anxious to achieve, and towards which he was working so vigorously at the imperial level, was being made contemporaneously at a very specific and local level by Leontius. Because the florilegium material is built into the conversationally presented argument, and commented on at length, the text also allows us to see how the heritage of the fathers weighed on Leontius and his contemporaries, and at the same time was being deployed and, in the modern sense, ‘massaged’, by him to serve his purposes as a lively and potent instrument for controversy.8 Seen in this light, Testimonies of the Saints is as attractive and revealing a resource for historical understanding as any other. That the sixth century is not as familiar as, say, the fourth 6
On the specific situation, see sect. XI below. On the causes, development, and nature of the schism between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, see sect. II below. 8 See sect. VII below on this issue. 7
(the ‘golden age’ of patristics, according to traditional scholarship), means that it is all the more important to have texts like this available in accessible form for both scholars and general readers. Leontius’ Aporiae are considerably narrower in range, their whole focus being on terminology and christological formulae. Nonetheless, there is some interest to be found in how Leontius exposes inconsistencies in anti-Chalcedonian vocabulary, and in one case some intellectual fun to be had from a series of double meanings he employs to good rhetorical effect. Moreover, rival formulae really were, as we have said, at the heart of the controversy between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians. Testimonies of the Saints meets the Aporiae, then, when it proposes a way of resolving the seeming contradictions of anti-Chalcedonian formulae (the very contradictions the Aporiae point out) by representing the underlying christology they used those formula to express in new, non-contradictory terms, and goes on to argue that these are nothing other than the terms intended by Chalcedon and Chalcedonians. That meant, Leontius argued, that the two factions actually agreed. Both Testimonies of the Saints’ concentration on resolving the many and seemingly disparate testimonies of what it calls ‘the select fathers’ into a single, consistent christological orthodoxy, and the Aporiae’s concern to move anti-Chalcedonians away from attempting to express orthodoxy in inadequate and contradictory terms, are aspects of a fundamental transformation in theological method that was going on, a movement away from arguments based on the Bible and on reason, and towards scholasticism. In the present volume, Testimonies of the Saints and the Aporiae emerge as quite distinct works, with the former given pride of place as being of inherently greater interest from many points of view. Though in the manuscript it is preceded by the Aporiae, there is no compelling reason to follow that practice or to see the two works as closely related in time or situation, though both are apparently addressed to the same audience, anti-Chalcedonians of Syria under the influence of Severus of Antioch.9
9 On the close connection between Testimonies of the Saints and Severus and his followers, see sects VI and XI below. On the identity of the addressees of the Aporiae, see sect. VIII below.
. : Leontius responded in the s to a highly problematic and quite real ecumenical situation that had, for over eighty years, divided the church within the eastern part of the Empire. Since virtually all of the church in Egypt, and much of it in Palestine and Syria, had refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon’s teaching or to be in communion with those who did accept it. The church of Rome, much of the church in the patriarchate of Constantinople, and parts of the church elsewhere in the East, did claim loyalty to Chalcedon. By the s the ecumenical situation was reaching crisis proportions, for the possibility was becoming stronger that anti-Chalcedonians would abandon their sense of being part of the one Church of the one Empire with a responsibility for restoring the rest of the church to orthodoxy as they understood it. The danger was that they would come to see themselves as the ‘real’ church contrasted with the ‘heretical’ imperial church. In the end, of course, that is precisely what happened, but in Leontius’ time that outcome did not seem at all inevitable, just dangerously possible—if the situation was not amended. Understandably, the Emperor Justinian actively lent his potent support to various initiatives to avert the impending schism, recognizing in it a danger to the unity of the Empire itself. The parties’ quite different positions resulted from rival interpretations of a tumultuous period that began with the outbreak of the Nestorian Controversy in , and ended with the Council of Chalcedon in . This was the disputed history. The first phase of the disputed history began with Nestorius, the recently elected patriarch of Constantinople, lending his support to attacks on the use of the title ‘God-Bearer’ (theotokos) for the Virgin Mary.10 As someone trained in the school of Antioch, he shared the school’s long-standing concern that a title like that dangerously obscured the human reality of the Word incarnate, and concealed the earlier heresy of Apollinarius. To those following in the tradition of Alexandria, however, the Antiochenes’ penchant for distinguishing the human Jesus from the divine Word flew in the face of the teaching of the church fathers and of the 10 The key texts from the controversy, with a useful introduction, are to be found in the sister volume from this series, L. R. Wickham (tr. and ed.), Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ).
Council of Nicaea; Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria –, became the champion of this view. The creed of Nicaea, the Alexandrians said, spoke of ‘one Lord Jesus Christ, who . . . was made man . . .’, echoing John’s Gospel, which said ‘the Word became flesh . . .’. That kind of language meant that there was only one subject of all of the Word incarnate’s actions, both in His divinity before the incarnation, and in His flesh; you could not legitimately talk about the human Jesus as if He were a distinct subject performing His own actions, as Nestorius was doing. The quarrel quickly escalated, and in Cyril presided over a council at Ephesus which condemned Nestorius for dividing the one Christ, but without the participation of John, patriarch of Antioch, and his bishops. John and his bishops held a counter-council condemning Cyril, and a period of uncertainty followed. The first phase ended in when the combatants were reluctantly brought by intense pressure from the imperial court to an agreement of sorts. This agreement involved the subscription by both sides to a statement of faith— often called the Union of —which included the assertions that Mary was ‘God-Bearer’, that the Word Himself was born ‘according to his humanity’ of the Virgin Mary, and that there was a ‘union’, rather than a ‘conjunction’, of His two natures.11 All of this was very agreeable to Cyril, and looked like a victory for his position. On the other hand, he did have to agree that ‘theologians divide [some] of the sayings [of the incarnate Word] as pertaining to two natures . . .’. Cyril’s capitulation on that last point proved enormously problematic for the vast network of churchmen who had read his letters, agreed with his objections to ‘Nestorianism’, and saw him as the reliable voice of orthodoxy. In the episode of the disputed history that followed, the champions of the Antiochene position lost no time in claiming that, by agreeing that one could legitimately divide the two natures of Christ, Cyril had capitulated to their position. Language about natures, heretofore uncontentious, thus took on new significance. Sometime after , Cyril in new letters12 attempted to address his partisans’ disquiet by clarifying what he meant by natures: Christ was indeed ‘out of two 11 Cyril, Letter (to John of Antioch, known as Laetentur coeli, ‘Let the heavens rejoice’, from the biblical quotation with which it opens), tr. J. I. McEnerney, FC lxxvi1 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, ), –. 12 See esp. Letter (the first letter to Succensus), tr. Wickham, –; and Letter (the second letter to Succensus), –.
natures’ before the Incarnation, in that one could with the mind distinguish the human and the divine which were united in Him; concretely, in the Incarnation, there was—as he assumed Athanasius had said—only ‘one incarnate nature’. The analogy used to explain how that could be the case was the time-honoured analogy of the union of body and soul in a human being: the mind could recognize somatic and psychic natures all right as the components of a human being, but in the concrete person they were united in one human nature. There was, in that sense, a ‘natural union’ in Christ. Since one way of talking about the dangers of Nestorianism was to say that Nestorius talked of the human and divine as separate ‘hypostases’ (hupostasis being a word often enough used to point to the concrete individual existence of an entity, as in trinitarian language about the three ‘persons’ or ‘hypostases’ of the Trinity), Cyril sometimes made the same point about the concrete oneness of Christ by saying there was a ‘union by hypostasis’ or ‘hypostatic union’. While Cyril was clarifying his position, the Antiochenes continued to claim victory for their position, and to try to diminish the influence of Cyril. The struggle continued. It was the elderly and influential monk of Constantinople, Eutyches, who proved the lightning-rod for hostilities in the next episode of the disputed history. The facts are clear enough: at a Home Synod of presided over by Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, Eutyches was charged and condemned for his supposed heretical belief that the human and divine were confused or mingled in one nature in the Incarnation.13 This heresy, if really his, would make him the first genuine monophysite (monos meaning ‘single’, and phusis meaning ‘nature’). Whatever he really thought—the issue demands more attention than it has been afforded to date—Eutyches fled to Cyril’s successor as patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who certainly accepted him as an orthodox Cyrillian. In Dioscorus presided over a second council at Ephesus.14 It exonerated Eutyches, condemned the one who condemned him, Flavian, and silenced Cyril’s Antiochene 13 The record of the trial of Eutyches is embedded in the acts of session one of Chalcedon, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO ii, , (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, ), –. The charges against him: and . 14 Known as the Second Council of Ephesus or, pejoratively, the Latrocinium (‘Brigandage of Ephesus’ or ‘Robber Synod’—Pope Leo’s epithet). Its records are, like those of the Home Synod that tried Eutyches, embedded in the acts of session one of Chalcedon, ACO ii, , , –.
critics such as Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Flavian died as a result of injuries sustained at or in connection with the council; Dioscorus, rightly or wrongly, was widely blamed for the violence. The papacy, which had been brought into the controversy by an appeal from Flavian and others, was offended that Pope Leo’s letter (the famous Tome) laying out the Roman position was never read at Ephesus. It took a sarcastic and deeply unsympathetic view of Eutyches. Thus, while Cyril’s partisans were triumphant, and saw the council of as an ecumenical council confirming Cyril’s council of , there was profound resistance to it in the West, and in spheres of Antiochene influence in the East. When a new emperor, Marcian, suddenly came to the throne, he chose to attempt to resolve the tensions plaguing the Church by calling yet another council, the one which eventually met at Chalcedon. He meant this council to satisfy the concerns of Rome. In yet another dramatic reversal, Chalcedon condemned Eutyches, and deposed Dioscorus. It approved Leo’s Tome as expressing the teaching of Cyril, though perhaps not paying too much attention to the fact that it spoke in typical Western language of two natures, each having distinct operations of its own. At Marcian’s insistence, the council went on (reluctantly) to draw up a statement of faith meant to become the agreed statement of faith uniting—such was the hope!—the Church and the Empire. The first version, though enthusiastically received by the majority of bishops, was withdrawn and its contents suppressed. We know only that it contained the phrase ‘out of two natures’, but that fact is a clear indication that it adopted the christological language of Cyril’s post- letters as the touchstone of orthodoxy. That approach would satisfy neither Rome nor the emperor. Urged to approve something that would rule out Eutychianism—Eutyches proving to be a useful bogeyman to spook a reluctant council into compliance with the imperial agenda—the bishops finally subscribed to a second and final version which radically reversed the approach of the first. In it the language of the Antiochenes and of the West was triumphant: Christ was ‘known in two natures’. The added phrase, ‘and in one person and hypostasis’, was undoubtedly meant to deny a fully Nestorian understanding of the distinction of natures as Cyril had construed it, i.e. that to say there were two natures meant there were two persons and hypostases. It was inevitable, however, that this qualification would pass unnoticed by Cyril’s partisans, for whom the combination of
the statement of faith and Leo’s Tome gave the very clear message that it was really Nestorianism that was being affirmed. Anti-Chalcedonians took the decisive positive moment in the disputed history to be Cyril of Alexandria’s clarification of his teaching in the wake of the Union of and of Antiochene attempts to hijack his authority. For them, the faith of the fathers was expressed clearly and authoritatively in the letters Cyril wrote during those years to clarify his position. Christ was ‘out of two natures’, and there was ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ in the actual Incarnation. The emphasis was all on what Cyril had fought for throughout his career, the oneness of the Word incarnate, the one subject who acted through both His divinity and his flesh. Chalcedon, in their view, betrayed that orthodox Cyrillian christology when it said Christ was ‘in two natures’. This was exactly the heresy Nestorius had tried to perpetrate in . The Union of used by Nestorius’ friends and sympathizers to associate Cyril with Nestorian ideas was not so much an expression of what Cyril really believed as it was a generous gesture to his enemies in an attempt to bring them, eventually, to what he really believed himself. To say baldly that Christ was in two natures simply did not have Cyril’s authority behind it. The episode of Eutyches was troubling for later anti-Chalcedonians, though, for they seem not to have had a clear sense of what he actually believed. What was clear to them was that Dioscorus upheld Cyril in and rescued him from being totally misrepresented, and that made him in their books a hero of the faith. That Chalcedon deposed and condemned Dioscorus under suspicious circumstances two years later revealed, so they thought, its opposition to Cyril’s faith. It pretended to condemn Nestorius, and to be against Eutyches, but its loyalty to Nestorius’ ideas was clear in the language it espoused in its statement of faith—Christ recognized ‘in two natures’—, and in its exoneration of Nestorian sympathizers like Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa. Cyrillians had shown, even before Chalcedon ended, that they were willing to go to the ramparts to defend the faith of the fathers and of Cyril against this betrayal of all they stood for, and eighty years later, in Leontius’ time, anti-Chalcedonians still saw themselves in exactly that light. By contrast, the position of the official, Chalcedonian church was by this time that the decision against Nestorianism had been made once and for all in . Chalcedon, in the view of
Chalcedonians, really was not about that issue, though it confirmed Ephesus and the condemnation of Nestorius. It was needed, rather, to defend the dual realities of divinity and humanity in Christ against a virulent new threat, the heresy of Eutyches. Only a clear statement about the two natures of Christ could exclude that heresy. Dioscorus had at the very least discredited himself by accepting the heretic at the illegitimate council of . For Chalcedonians, Cyril’s decisive teaching was contained in his Second Letter to Nestorius, in which he said that the unity of Christ did not imply ‘that the difference between the natures was abolished through their union’15 (a text to be contrasted with the post Cyril who said that Christ was ‘out of two natures before the union’), and of course in the Symbol of Union. Those texts had special authority, in fact, because they had received synodical approval. Chalcedonians claimed that this Cyril, interpreted through the ‘synodical’ texts, was perfectly in agreement with Chalcedon on Christ’s two natures. At issue, then, were contrasting views of a disputed history, and especially contrasting views of what Cyril of Alexandria stood for. Cyril was defined for the disputants by two very different selections from his works. One selection privileged ‘one incarnate nature’ of Christ; the other privileged ‘two natures’. Given the centrality of Cyril for the anti-Chalcedonians, any attempt to reconcile them to Chalcedon and to Chalcedonians had the formidable task of convincing them of something that seemed to them patently not the case. That is, anti-Chalcedonians had to be convinced, not just that Cyril spoke of ‘two natures’ as had Chalcedon—anti-Chalcedonians could argue with considerable plausibility that what he really meant by such talk was authoritatively explained by ‘out of two natures’—but that Chalcedon actually agreed with what to them was his central article of faith, the ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’. Leontius of Jerusalem is particularly interesting for the developed way in which he attempts to make precisely that case. For better or for worse, though, by the time he made it his audience was beyond hearing it.
15
Cyril, Letter , tr. Wickham, p. .
. That Leontius came at the end of some eighty-five years of debate and conversation between the parties goes a long way towards explaining how he addressed the issues as he did: he had learned what might succeed, and what was doomed to fail. That long history had certainly demonstrated how difficult the whole situation was. Every attempt by the state during those eighty-five years to force the anti-Chalcedonians to give up their opposition and be reunited with the official Church failed.16 Likewise, efforts to reduce the place of Cyril and his christology in their eyes were, if anything, counter-productive. For instance, the Emperor Marcian published evidence c. that Cyril’s ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ was derived from a heretical source, not from Athanasius as Cyril had thought.17 That revelation perhaps seemed to Marcian and his advisers to be the appropriate bombshell needed to convince anti-Chalcedonians once and for all to abandon the post- Cyril. There is no evidence, though, that there was any effect whatsoever on the anti-Chalcedonian resistance. The tactic, tried again in during conversations between anti-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians, again deepened the divide. The anti-Chalcedonians simply would not listen to any argument that meant compromising, as they saw it, the authority of Cyril on the central statements of doctrine they held dear, and Chalcedonians would challenge it at their peril.18 The most positive initiative of the period immediately after Chalcedon, taken not by the state but by some anonymous scholar, was the Cyrillian Florilegium, an assembly of texts from Cyril showing him asserting two natures, or at least some kind of persisting duality in 16 My short account of imperial policy in this period remains useful: P. T. R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (–), SHCT (Leiden: Brill, ), –. 17 ACO ii, , ed. E. Schwartz (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, ), . 18 The case for the formula’s inauthenticity, made by Hypatius of Ephesus, the Chalcedonian advocate at the Conversations, was recorded by one of the Chalcedonian participants: Innocentius of Maronea, Letter to Thomas the Priest, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO iv, (Berlin and Leipzig: Sumptibus Caroli J. Trübner, Librarii argentoratensis, ), –. The absolute refusal of the equivalent anti-Chalcedonian report by John Bar Aphtonia even to mention this issue indicates how firm was the antiChalcedonians’ denial of the forgeries: see the Syriac fragment of John’s account, with translation, in S. Brock, ‘The conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian ()’, OCP (), –.
Christ.19 It thus moved the case for Chalcedon’s compatibility with Cyril beyond the two ‘synodical’ letters. It did not, however, even cite the texts central to the anti-Chalcedonians, much less attempt to show that Chalcedon was true to them. Leontius evidently was familiar with Severus of Antioch’s devastating critique of the Cyrillian Florilegium in his Friend of Truth, composed some fifty years after its publication.20 Perhaps he recognized the futility of arguing that Chalcedon and Cyril agreed simply because both used ‘two natures’, however well the case could be documented. A more convincing resolution of the substantive issues was required if Severus and like-minded anti-Chalcedonians were to be satisfied. The Emperor Zeno found an alternative to resolving the crisis over Chalcedon in simply putting brackets around it: he instituted the policy of the Henoticon, a decree which ruled that the parties should stand down from insisting on either the acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon. He thereby achieved uneasy peace for his empire (the Henoticon was in effect –), but at the price of removing much of the impetus for any real attempt to address substantive issues.21 We have no idea what Leontius thought about the Henoticon. As a Palestinian, though, he would almost certainly have been aware of the efforts of a few Palestinian residents of the previous generation to reopen the discussion with the antiChalcedonians. Nephalius of Alexandria, operating in Palestine c. , and John ‘the Grammarian’ of Caesarea (fl. ), earned the wrath of Severus of Antioch by publishing defences of Chalcedon in which they took the case for Chalcedon much farther than had the Cyrillian Florilegium. Both took seriously—for the first time in Chalcedonian circles—the ‘one incarnate nature’ formula. They proposed different ways of bringing out its compatibility with, 19 The text is preserved in Syriac within the refutation composed by Severus of Antioch called The Friend of Truth (Philalethes), ed. and tr. R. Hespel, Le Philalèthe, CSCO ccciii and ccciv = Scriptores Syri lxviii and lxix (Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, and ). 20 Ibid. Leontius seems pretty clearly to be referring—sarcastically—to Severus’ title, The Friend of Truth, in Testimonies of the Saints at , when he speaks of ‘friendship for the truth’. An anti-Chalcedonian, Severus was the controversial patriarch of Antioch –. Dethroned in , he lived out his life in exile in Egypt, which remained virtually entirely, and certainly obdurately, anti-Chalcedonian. From exile he continued, through his letters and books, to be the most influential and theologically articulate voice of the anti-Chalcedonian party. 21 The text of the Henoticon: Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, iii. , ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (Amsterdam: Hakkert, ), –.
or in John’s case complementarity to, Chalcedon.22 Severus’ responses showed that they had been successful in convincing at least some anti-Chalcedonians to return to the official Church, if not Severus himself.23 Severus in fact became only more deeply convinced of the rightness of the anti-Chalcedonian resistance, and in his Friend of Truth he clarified and systematized that stance: everything that Cyril had written could and should be interpreted through and by the key formula ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’. What neither Nephalius, nor John ‘the Grammarian’, nor indeed anyone on the Chalcedonian side had succeeded in doing was to demonstrate convincingly how Chalcedon was fully true to that part of Cyril. It could never be sufficient to argue that it was merely compatible with, or complementary to it. Leontius must have known, too, of the conversations Justinian sponsored in between representatives of the Chalcedonians and representatives of Syrian anti-Chalcedonians who maintained connections with their exiled patriarch, Severus.24 Those same Syrian anti-Chalcedonians were, after all, to be the intended audience of his own Testimonies of the Saints a few years later. He may even have been the ‘Leontius, representative of the monks in [ Jerusalem]’, who was listed among those present.25 The conversations had the express purpose of uncovering possible grounds for reconciliation. Though they failed after just two of the projected three days, and no official minutes were kept, we do have accounts from participants on both sides that give us a fascinating look at how the issues were formulated, where the sticking-points were, and what strategies were unproductive. Leontius seems to have 22
Nephalius argued that what Chalcedon really meant was ‘two united natures’, and suggested that the word ‘incarnate’ in ‘one incarnate nature’ pointed to the second nature that Chalcedon asserted in a different way: Severus of Antioch, Orations against Nephalius, ed. and tr. J. Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium: eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epistulae mutuae, CSCO cxxx = Scriptores Syri lxv (Louvain: Apud L. Durbecq, ), ; idem, Against the Grammarian, ed. and tr. J. Lebon, Liber contra impium grammaticum, CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series , vi, . John ‘the Grammarian’ made a subtle historical argument for the view that the Union of showed both parties to have accepted both ‘two natures’ and ‘one incarnate nature’. Each was necessary against one of the antithetical errors of Eutyches and Nestorius. Chalcedon affirmed one, and Cyril the other. On this argument see A. Grillmeier (with T. Hainthaler), Christ in Christian Tradition, ii2, tr. P. Allen and J. Cawte (London and Oxford: Mowbray, ), –. 23 As is confirmed also by Severus’ biographer: John Bar Aphtonia, Life of Severus, ed. and tr. M. A. Kugener, PO (Paris: Firmin-Didot, ), –. 24 See n. above on the accounts of the Conversations. 25 Innocentius, p. .
been aware of precisely this information, since, as we shall see, he attempted in every case to formulate things in such a way as to go beyond the problems that led to the conversations’ failure. Among the unproductive strategies, as has been mentioned, was discrediting key anti-Chalcedonian and Cyrillian articles of faith as based on forgeries. Another was any attempt to privilege as authoritative or ‘synodical’ only two letters of Cyril that spoke clearly in favour of ‘two natures’. No anti-Chalcedonian could be convinced to leave aside the crucial post- letters in which their favoured formulae were found, and the attempt to get them to do so could lead only to a deepening of their suspicion that Cyril was being betrayed, not honoured. In fact, the conversations showed again that the anti-Chalcedonians could never be satisfied by anything less than convincing proof that Chalcedon meant exactly what Cyril and they meant by ‘one incarnate nature’. Moreover, the conversations showed that the anti-Chalcedonians, though unwilling to say that Eutyches was orthodox, and though troubled by the fact that Dioscorus had received him, still viewed the latter as a hero of orthodoxy. They were convinced that there was something underhanded about his condemnation by Chalcedon. They likewise remained convinced that Chalcedon was made deeply suspect by its acceptance of Theodoret and Ibas, the friends of Nestorius and enemies of Cyril; their account showed that they got some pleasure out of embarrassing the Chalcedonians on that very point. The conversations showed one more thing, something that was to be central to Leontius of Jerusalem’s own approach: they showed that, at least in the not-unperceptive opinion of Justinian, it was possible to conceive of winning over antiChalcedonians of Syria without the participation or approval of their leader-in-exile, Severus. Shortly after the Conversations, in , Justinian promulgated an edict identifying ‘union by hypostasis’ as central to the orthodox faith.26 Cyril, as has been observed, and his followers through the generations, had seen behind Nestorius’ ‘two natures’ the assertion that there were two hypostases (i.e. independent subjects) in Christ, and had countered with what amounted to contrary slogans: there was ‘one hypostasis’ in Christ; there was a ‘union by hypostasis’. The edict was aimed at allaying anti-Chalcedonian fears, as Chalcedon’s addition of ‘one person and hypostasis’ had 26
Codex Justinianus I, , .
been, by denying that there were two hypostases or a mere conjunction of persons, rather than at developing a christology of hypostatic union. Leontius of Jerusalem would not make a major contribution to the conceptual development of union by hypostasis in either of the works published here, but he would propose that the formula be seen as the basis on which the divided churches could discover their unsuspected unity.
. : Testimonies of the Saints was published at a time of great urgency about resolving the schism in the Church before it became irreversible. It was also published in the context of considerable momentum towards bringing about union on the part of the state, in that Justinian—having learned much from his earlier attempts, including the failed Conversations—was fully engaged in orchestrating, with a more and more confident hand, the great drive towards reunion that was to culminate in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of . As has been remarked, Testimonies of the Saints seems to be not so much a theological statement debating theologians of the other side as it is a work addressed to anti-Chalcedonian churchmen at an almost popular level. It takes the form of a conversation, a long and rambling and rather informal literary conversation,27 between Leontius as representing the Chalcedonians on one side, and various representations of anti-Chalcedonian voices on the other.28 The latter are represented sometimes directly as ‘you’ (plural) or ‘you’ (singular), sometimes indirectly as ‘they’ or ‘he’.29 More than 27 A certain informality has been noticed by some scholars. It is hoped that the informality is suitably reflected in the translation. 28 A sense of the conversation as a whole can be gained from the summary provided in the Appendix. 29 In the translation, the pronouns standing for anti-Chalcedonians in the plural are usually rendered as ‘they’, or ‘these people’ if they are being spoken about, and ‘you’, ‘you people’, or ‘my friends’, if they are being addressed. Leontius has the habit of slipping into the third person singular—‘he says’, without an antecedent—and here ‘he’ is rendered by ‘my friend’. The intention is to capture some of the irony implied by debaters when they call opponents ‘my friends’, as also the ambiguous sense, implied by the language, that the opponent is being invited to listen and be won over to a better point of view, i.e. to become in fact a friend. This second sense is especially suited to this work, which overtly invites its opponents to become friends.
is the case with most of Leontius’ contemporaries, the antiChalcedonian voices are treated with a certain respect. The agenda is quite clear: We Chalcedonians, Leontius says, ‘do our winning over by charm’, and we intend to ‘bring your anger against us to an end by winning you over’;30 what he intends to win them over to is the ‘recognition’ that what they stand for in terms of genuinely Cyrillian christology is what Chalcedonians stand for too, and that therefore they have sadly misjudged Chalcedon and Chalcedonians. They really have no excuse for remaining in schism with them. Leontius’ anti-Chalcedonian voices identify two serious issues and several minor ones; the work addresses them in turn: Chalcedon’s novelty, and its dishonesty, are the serious issues, and they take up almost the entire work. The first charge is the absolutely fundamental one, and the one to which Testimonies of the Saints devotes by far the most space, naturally enough: Chalcedonians use ‘a strange [expression] we [anti-Chalcedonians] don’t find being used explicitly by the fathers anywhere, i.e. “two natures, albeit undivided, of Christ” ’, whereas we anti-Chalcedonians use ‘the fathers’ teaching about Christ . . . in their own words, i.e. “one incarnate nature of God the Word”, as in holy Athanasius and Cyril’.31 What Leontius describes as ‘the charge of dishonesty against the church’ comes down to the suspicion, amounting to an unshakeable conviction, that the fathers of Chalcedon had ‘as their pretext for convening the condemnation of Eutyches, but were really an act of zeal for Nestorius’.32 Among the less serious charges is the claim by certain anti-Chalcedonians that the soundness of their own doctrine was confirmed by God’s gift to them of superior and more abundant miracle-working power.33 On the first charge, Leontius tips his hand right away. He suggests that the anti-Chalcedonians’ claim that Chalcedonians betrayed the teaching of the fathers when they used the novel formula of ‘two natures’ resulted from their refusal to investigate ‘whether to speak of one incarnate nature of God the Word really is the same in meaning as speaking of a duality of natures of Christ united in one hypostasis’. They based their refusal, he says, on the fact that they didn’t find the latter expression explicitly affirmed by the fathers.34 The investigation he speaks of 30 33
–.
31 34
–. .
32
–.
is precisely what Leontius now challenges his anti-Chalcedonians to take up. For instance, he says, ‘one incarnate nature’ was enunciated to protect against Nestorianism, and ‘a duality of natures of Christ united in one hypostasis’ was enunciated later to protect against Eutychianism. Analysis shows they were not opposed formulae at all, just different ways of affirming the same thing to emphasize what needed to be emphasized against heresy. ‘One incarnate nature’ affirms one fundamental aspect of Christ in terms of ‘unity’, whereas ‘a duality of natures of Christ united in one hypostasis’ affirms it in terms of ‘union’. The former affirms the other fundamental aspect of Christ by distinguishing implicitly between what is ‘incarnated’ and what ‘incarnates’, whereas the latter affirms it by frankly speaking of ‘two’.35 There is then, Leontius invites them to see, an underlying unity beneath the disparity in language; they and the Chalcedonians actually believe exactly the same thing. The key to discovering this unity in meaning is getting below the surface differences in language, and the key to doing that, says Leontius, is realizing that ‘to thoughtless people “nature” is a word with more than one meaning, and is often used in place of “substance” and “hypostasis” ’.36 For him, ‘nature’ (phusis) is properly identified with ‘substance’ (ousia, the essential character of a thing) rather than with ‘hypostasis’ (an individual entity or person).37 When Cyril spoke of ‘one incarnate nature’, however, he was using ‘nature’ in the sense of ‘hypostasis’, which meant he was talking about a hypostatic union in Christ—a union in one particular entity or person—not a natural union, despite the use of the word ‘nature’. (In a natural union properly speaking, things are joined by virtue of being subsumed to the same nature or substance.38) Similarly, when Chalcedon spoke, with the synodical Cyril, about ‘two natures’, it was speaking about two substances, not about two hypostases or persons. At the centre of Leontius’ proposed neutral way of talking about the allegedly shared christology beneath their rival formu–. –. 37 Throughout the translation phusis and ousia are always represented by ‘nature’ and ‘substance’ respectively. Hupostasis is always transliterated, or anglicized, as hypostasis, since no single English word or phrase accurately captures its meaning. 38 At – the example is provided of mixed gum and wax, a mixture that results in a new nature with new properties. 35 36
lae is ‘union by hypostasis’. He offers not so much a conceptual explanation of what a union by hypostasis is, as some examples: When papyrus or a sponge is dipped in water, and has drawn all the water into its whole self, it doesn’t end up being one nature with the water, but one hypostasis. In the same way, iron and fire result in a hypostasis of red-hot metal. Stones and wood, too, result in a new hypostasis, that of a house, but they keep the same natures, though they’re united to each other and come together in a house’s structure and in the reality that underlies a single entity, i.e. the house’s hypostasis.39
His point is that there do exist single entities in which distinct natures are united without being destroyed. A key feature of such unions is the capacity of a single hypostasis to become more composite, without losing its unity, by the addition of a second nature. Thus, in Christ, the one hypostasis of the Word, eternally possessed of a divine nature, can be understood to have become more composite by the addition of a human nature, without ceasing to be one hypostasis. With these terminological clarifications, Leontius can approach the many texts of the fathers he adduces in the florilegia that follow, systematically interpreting all texts that refer to one nature as really meaning one hypostasis, and all texts that refer to a duality of any kind as really meaning a duality of natures understood in the sense of substance.40 In this way, Leontius attempts to move the Chalcedonian agenda beyond the failed strategy of granting authority only to certain texts of Cyril that spoke of ‘two natures’: on his view even the most anti-Chalcedonian sounding texts of the post- Cyril speak to the one truth of a union by hypostasis, and he devotes a special section to showing that this is so: ‘[E]ven the sayings of the fathers that in your view agree with your doctrines rather recommend ours when they’re examined, as they ought to be, in terms of their meaning . . .’.41 The implication of accepting Leontius’ argument is clearly that, if such substantive agreement is recognized, none of the issues that seem to divide anti-Chalcedonians from Chalcedonians need stand in the way of unity: So as to demonstrate, as may be, before God and men that your secession from the Church isn’t reasonable, look, we set aside every argument 39 40 41
–. –. –; the section devoted to this demonstration: –.
we might make against your allegations, and make you the following offer: if you’ll join with us in confessing the tried and true doctrines, saying both ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ and that there are two natures of Christ united in His one hypostasis, and if you also don’t repudiate the council and Leo and ourselves, then we, for our part, anathematize even an angel from heaven sooner than we do you, if he doesn’t think and speak and write likewise; we praise and accept Severus, Dioscorus, Timothy, and you, and anyone at all who shares such views; we add nothing to this . . .42
Leontius also brings a new approach to a related issue identified by the Conversations of as a real sticking-point for the antiChalcedonians. Attempts to undermine the anti-Chalcedonian position by demonstrating the Apollinarian roots of its cherished ‘one incarnate nature’ had, as has been observed, served only to deepen the schism. The issue was inescapable in the context of Leontius’ literary conversation with anti-Chalcedonians, since it was central to the latter’s case to emphasize the ancient patristic pedigree of their formula over against what they described as Chalcedon’s novel (and Nestorian) language.43 Leontius is convinced that Cyril’s famous one-nature formula depended on Apollinarian forgeries—he probably knew personally one man who had explored the evidence, John, Bishop of Scythopolis—and is willing to present the case in some detail here.44 He does so, however, in the light of an extended discussion of the orthodox meaning Cyril, on his interpretation, intended by that formula, and immediately following his insistence that Cyril was not inconsistent, i.e. that what he meant by ‘one incarnate nature’ cohered with what he meant when he spoke of ‘two natures’.45 (It is clear that he saw, in the real or imputed tendency of such leaders as Severus to dismiss the Cyril of the Symbol of Union as inconsistent with his real position, a useful bit of rhetoric for attempting to detach Severus’ followers from him.46) Leontius is thus at some pains to emphasize the positive nature of his presentation of Cyril. He tries to show, in fact, that Cyril used the key heretical forgery ascribed to Athanasius (and, as Leontius has already said, –. The discussion is found at –. 44 Leontius mentions John of Scythopolis in this connection at –. 45 –. 46 Hence the odd citation from ‘Timothy Aelurus’ at – that presents Severus as curing ‘with his holy writings whatever of Cyril’s was unsound and contradictory’. On alienating Severus and his follows, see sect. VI below. 42 43
used it in a perfectly orthodox sense) without being aware of its origins: ‘If our teacher Cyril introduces it as being Athanasius’ statement . . . it’s not impossible that he was drawn to it, either construed in terms of our meaning, or—under the influence of certain people’s forgery—mistaken for patristic rather than heretical evidence.’47 Moreover, even when it is the famous pseudo-Athanasian text that he is about to show convincingly comes from Apollinarius, Leontius makes sure first to offer a positive interpretation of it, compatible with his own position, for anti-Chalcedonians who could never accept its inauthenticity.48
. : The second charge Leontius puts in the mouth of his antiChalcedonians is the charge of dishonesty. Various antiChalcedonian voices identify the suspicious circumstances: Dioscorus was condemned, but not on the charge for which he was cited;49 Chalcedon accepted Theodoret and Ibas, both friends of Nestorius, proponents of his ideas, and critics of Cyril;50 Chalcedon dropped the first creed it produced, and replaced it with another;51 votes were bought.52 In Leontius’ response to this charge he makes careful attempts to disarm the antiChalcedonians on these points. Leontius sticks pretty well to the pro-Chalcedonian argument used at the Conversations of on the issue of Dioscorus’ treatment. Dioscorus was called on suspicion of Eutychianism, and it would not do to say his reception of Eutyches was based on the latter’s abandonment of his earlier beliefs, since Dioscorus deposed Flavian for deposing Eutyches before he could have abandoned them. He was therefore either shown to be a Eutychian for his defence of Eutyches against Flavian, or else he was unjust in deposing Flavian for deposing a heretic he, Dioscorus, did not agree with!53 That argument for the justice of Dioscorus’ deposition does not change. Unlike the participants in the . –. He likewise offers an orthodox interpretation of a text from ‘Gregory Thaumaturgus’ just in case, though he clearly suspects it is a forgery: –. 49 50 51 . . – and . 52 53 . –. 47 48
conversations, though, Leontius sees that there are dark antiChalcedonian suspicions on this matter, and seeks to lay them to rest. On the one hand, Leontius uses these suspicions as one opportunity among many to attempt to detach Severus’ followers from their leader. Conspiracy theories of that kind, Leontius says, are the inventions of anti-Chalcedonian leaders like Severus trying to suborn ‘those not well-equipped to judge’.54 On the other hand, he argues that the treatment of Dioscorus by Chalcedon really was a model of proper and transparent legal process. He was summoned on the charges of receiving Eutyches (i.e. on suspicion of heresy) and of unjustly deposing Flavian; he made excuses for not appearing, which were eventually found to be fraudulent; he was re-summoned, refused to appear, and was then condemned for the refusal. In legal terms, the serious charges initially brought against him were prevented from being brought to trial, not because of any conspiracy to misrepresent the case, but simply because he refused to appear and be tried.55 In this way, Leontius attempts to present Chalcedon as scrupulously fair in its treatment of Dioscorus, and avoids associating himself with any claim that Dioscorus—a hero to the people with whom he seeks reconciliation—was in fact a heretic. The most he claims— he can hardly do otherwise—is that Chalcedon had legitimate and entirely public reasons for the deposition. On the issue of Chalcedon’s damning acceptance of Theodoret and Ibas—damning because it suggested so strongly to anti-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon was bent on restoring the Nestorianism with which these men were associated—Leontius’ response represents, again, an effort to bridge the ecumenical gap. He does not deny the possibility that Theodoret and Ibas secretly persisted in Nestorian beliefs. He admits, indeed, that the charge may very well be true, though he pleads with the antiChalcedonians to recognize the possibility of a genuine change of heart on the part of such Antiochenes.56 His appeal, though, is for recognition that Chalcedon as a whole should not be condemned just because two or three participants were closet Nestorians, any more than Nicaea should be condemned because a few heretics were known to be participants in it, or than Ephesus should be condemned because some of its members also participated in Chalcedon (if Chalcedon really was so heretical).57 While not 54 56
. See sect. VI below. –.
55 57
–. –.
going nearly so far as Justinian was prepared to go in the proposal he presented to the anti-Chalcedonians at the end of the Conversations of —a proposal that would eventually be developed into the full-fledged campaign to condemn the Three Chapters— Leontius shows himself once again to be willing to recognize some validity in anti-Chalcedonian claims. At the same time, he tries to show that remaining loyal to Chalcedon was not incompatible with those claims if the historical and theological realities were properly understood.58 The same may be said of Leontius’ responses to three minor charges: that Chalcedon’s remaking of its creed was highly suspicious; that votes were bought at Chalcedon; and that the frequent manifestations of miracle-working powers among antiChalcedonians was God’s way of demonstrating the truth of their position. The first charge was difficult. As has been noted, Chalcedon’s first statement of faith was suppressed, and the second and final statement of faith was adopted only under great pressure from the court. The patent reversal, moving from a Cyrillian statement of faith to a Nestorian-sounding one, lent instant plausibility to the anti-Chalcedonian case that there was something decidedly fishy about that second statement.59 Leontius goes so far with his anti-Chalcedonian readers as to accept the facts, embarrassing as they are, but he does try to limit the inferences drawn from them: Chalcedon did indeed remake its definition, but to impute sinister motives to it because it did so is nothing but ‘courtroom rhetoric’ he will not dignify with a response.60 He suggests instead a positive evaluation: Chalcedon simply recognized imperfections in its first definition, and tried again.61 On the charge of bribery, Leontius again goes part way with his readers: perhaps a few people were bribed, but not the vast majority. Should not the sinners be forgiven?62 On the issue of miracles, though Leontius does dispute the claim of superior numbers for anti-Chalcedonian miracles (‘one swallow doth not a summer 58
The Three Chapters were the person and work of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus against Cyril of Alexandria, and Ibas of Edessa’s Letter to Mari the Persian. All were condemned, not many years after Leontius wrote, first by an imperial edict of , then by Constantinople II in . 59 It was not Marcian’s heavy hand in the affair which drew the antiChalcedonians’ suspicion—the Church accepted without question a prominent role for the emperor in councils—but the radical reversal of position on the part of the bishops. 60 61 62 . –. –.
make’, he cannot help saying), he does not place any weight on that point.63 As in the case of Apollinarian forgeries, he grants the possibility that the anti-Chalcedonians may even be right, but he attempts to challenge the implication drawn by some anti-Chalcedonians: there are, he says, many plausible reasons why God might grant miracle-working power other than dogmatic correctness, such as miracles’ usefulness in winning over non-Christians.64
. : While the fundamental thrust of Testimonies of the Saints is clearly to win over Syrian anti-Chalcedonians under the leadership-fromexile of Severus, and Leontius is well aware of the profound influence Severus continues to exercise over anti-Chalcedonians in Syria, he shares completely Justinian’s apparent belief, at the time of the Conversations of , that Severus’ said followers can be alienated from him, and reconciled independently of him. He goes out of his way to drive a wedge between them. The dismissal of Severus as a ‘nature-mixer’ (‘mixophysite’) is a taunting way of identifying him with the standard phantom Eutychianism, but it is no more than a rhetorical flourish. From the outset, though, Leontius makes a serious, sustained attempt to make a more telling case to Severus’ followers against him. His plan is to show Severus as genuinely inconsistent in his thinking, and wilful in his resistance to Chalcedon. On the point of inconsistency, Leontius says Severus claims to stand against ‘two natures’, yet is on record as saying that ‘most of the holy fathers used the expression . . . in a blameless way’, and as validating over and over again two-natures language despite himself.65 He turns Severus’ critique of Chalcedon for not saying ‘out of two natures’, i.e. for not talking about duality in a legitimately Cyrillian way, into an admission that Chalcedon was not incorrect in speaking of two natures. That, he argues, is inconsistent with his condemnation of Chalcedon,66 and, having argued to his own satisfaction 63 65 66
64 . –. . The charge is repeated at some length at –. –.
that Chalcedon and Chalcedonians of his own time accept everything Severus claims they should (‘out of two’, ‘union by hypostasis’, ‘combination’, ‘an entire nature’),67 he tips his hand unmistakably: ‘Since [this is so,] what possible reason can these people have for refusing to agree with us on these, using both “out of two” and “in two”, and electing to anathematize Severus, Dioscorus, and those with them, if they don’t think the same?’68 Leontius goes on, in a long section devoted to antiChalcedonian texts that appear to support Chalcedon, to discredit Severus again for risible inconsistency, and for the manner of his deposition from the patriarchal throne of Antioch, ending with a curious citation, allegedly but impossibly from Timothy Aelurus, describing Severus as the one who ‘cured’ Cyril’s ‘inconsistency’ on two-natures language. The choice of that text can only have been intended to leave Severus looking guilty, in the eyes of his followers, of criticizing Cyril himself for using both one-nature and two-natures formulae!69 That this implication is fully intended by Leontius becomes clear from a later reference to Severus as ‘patricidal’.70 Severus later is dismissed as the anti-Chalcedonians’ ‘self-styled teacher’,71 and derided for individually anathematizing a council completely outside his jurisdiction.72 All of this suggests that the descriptions of Severus at the very beginning of Testimonies of the Saints as the anti-Chalcedonians’ ‘authoritative guide’, and near the end, without actually naming him, as a man obsessed with his ‘status as a teacher’, carry a clear message: the antiChalcedonians are spinelessly letting themselves be manipulated by an inconsistent egomaniac who sets himself against the whole duly constituted Church, yet, as a deposed patriarch, he is a man who has no legitimate claim over them. Moreover, in the name of Cyril they are accepting Severus’ outright doctoring of Cyril’s teaching to exclude the manifold texts in which Cyril does speak of two natures or the equivalent.73 We do not need to be convinced that the strategy both Justinian and Leontius adopted of trying to sever Severians from Severus 68 –. . –. Timothy Aelurus (‘the Weasel’) was an anti-Chalcedonian, and Patriarch of Alexandria at various times between and his death in . He was one of the first to write against Chalcedon. It is possible that Leontius intends to attribute the text rather to Timothy III of Alexandria. 70 71 72 . . . 73 ‘Authoritative guide’: ; ‘status as a teacher’: . 67 69
had any real chance of success. Only one anti-Chalcedonian at the Conversations changed sides, and Justinian’s more developed strategy for reconciling anti-Chalcedonians at the Council of certainly did not succeed, facts which suggest that Justinian and Leontius were unrealistic in their hopes. That should not prevent us from recognizing that, in the s, they could not know the outcome, and could and apparently did believe their strategy might succeed.
. : Central to Leontius’ strategy was the use of the patristic witness to what he believed he could show was the fathers’ single underlying christological faith, since the sides agreed on this at least, that the faith of the fathers was what defined orthodoxy. In making the appeal to the fathers the heart of his theological argument, he exemplifies a late stage in a remarkable transformation that took place in theological argument during the fifth and sixth centuries.74 Though the roots of the patristic argument can be traced further back, Cyril of Alexandria effectively marked its move to the centre of the stage, when he discovered it was more effective to charge Nestorius with betraying the faith of the fathers, and to demonstrate the fact with a florilegium, than to tackle him on his understanding of Scriptures (the Antiochenes had a formidable and sophisticated approach to the latter). As the focus moved to the fathers, the fathers themselves came to acquire greater authority in the minds of those who argued over what they taught, and from what they taught. Grillmeier puts it cautiously—‘It was only that the proof from Scripture acquired younger siblings who 74 I have explored this transformation in a number of articles: P. T. R. Gray, ‘Covering the Nakedness of Noah: Reconstruction and Denial in the Age of Justinian’, in L. Garland (ed.), Conformity and Non-Conformity in Byzantium, = BF (), -; ‘Forgery as an Instrument of Progress: Reconstructing the Theological Tradition in the Sixth Century’, BZ (), –; ‘Neo-Chalcedonianism and the Tradition: From Patristic to Byzantine Theology’, BF (), -; ‘ “The Select Fathers”: Canonizing the Patristic Past’, Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford , StudPat (Leuven: Peeters Press, ), ; ‘Through the Tunnel with Leontius of Jerusalem: The Sixth Century Transformation of Theology’, in P. Allen and E. Jeffreys (eds.), The Sixth Century: End or Beginning?, BA (Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, ), –.
wanted to sit at the same theological table and seemed for a while to demand the larger portion, which, however, must never be claimed from the “first-born” ’75—but the truth is that, by the sixth century, the argumentum patristicum did not just demand a bigger place in theological argument, it exercised virtual hegemony. That fact is illustrated by the complete reliance of the Fifth Ecumenical Council on a single way of demonstrating the heresy of the Three Chapters: their works were compared minutely with patristic texts of an assumed canon of fathers who represented infallible orthodoxy. There was not the merest hint of a demonstration from Scriptures. Scholasticism had been born, and Testimonies of the Saints, as its title suggests, exemplifies how scholastic theological argument functioned. Very soon after Chalcedon, and from then on, champions of both parties had indeed turned to the fathers, collecting key texts into florilegia, or using florilegia previously collected by others. Leontius evidently had at hand various florilegia, from which he and others—his contemporary, Leontius of Byzantium, for one, and in the next century John Maron, for another—drew in common. He even had one or more florilegia of anti-Chalcedonian texts. Yet unlike Leontius of Byzantium, as a comparative study shows, Leontius of Jerusalem was a careless user of sources. The one scholar ever to make a serious study of the florilegia of the period, Marcel Richard, has no kind words for our Leontius on this score: ‘The little collection of definitions of Christ with which [the first florilegium] opens would have made Severus jump for joy . . . Not only does he not indicate from which works he’s borrowed his texts, but he also altered almost all of them in his own way.’76 He goes on to add that Leontius cut most of them so short as to leave their meaning in doubt, copied them inaccurately, and generally left them in great disorder. Whether Severus, if he ever came upon Testimonies of the Saints, did jump for joy or not— Richard incorrectly assumed that he was dead by the time Leontius wrote, as will be seen—we shall never know. Certainly 75 A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition II1, tr. P. Allen and J. Cawte (London and Oxford: Mowbray, ), . 76 M. Richard, ‘Les Florilèges diphysites du Ve et du VIe siècle’, Opera Minora, i (Turnhout: Brepols, ), no. , . Richard prepared a massive work with sections on the florilegia of many writers, including both Leontii, but it was never published. The section on Leontius of Jerusalem was kindly made available by M. Geerard, Richard’s literary executor. Recent enquiries reveal that, sadly, at Geerard’s death, Richard’s papers were not preserved.
Severus’ followers, if they had the means and the will to test how accurate were his citations of the fathers, will have been less impressed by Leontius’ argument than they might have been. To fault Leontius for bad historical scholarship is fair, but his bad scholarship is not the end of the story. Severus’ much better historical scholarship is not the end of the story either. We know, after all, that a fierce critic of the scholarship of his opponents like Severus was well aware of a very good piece of scholarship indeed on the Chalcedonian side, scholarship which proved pretty well beyond a doubt that the anti-Chalcedonians’ favourite ‘authoritative’ texts rested, in part, on Apollinarian forgeries. Yet he did not stop using the suspect texts. Leontius himself is able to make a decent enough scholarly case when he wants to, as he does in our text when he attacks Apollinarian forgeries, yet he is not at all scholarly—he is downright sloppy, in fact—when it comes to the texts that he himself wishes to cite. Something more, then, is at work here than scholarly capabilities. Theologians of Leontius’ era were compelled to prove the orthodoxy of what they taught by appealing to the texts of the fathers. Appealing to the fathers involved a major assumption, however: that all of the genuine fathers taught, consistently, one orthodox faith. That assumption is revealingly expressed by Leontius in Testimonies of the Saints: ‘Surely none of the select fathers is at variance with himself or with his peers with respect to the intended sense of the faith’.77 He can confidently assume that his anti-Chalcedonian audience agrees, and can proceed on that basis to make his argument about an underlying common faith. Yet the strains that universal assumption placed on theologians were enormous. For one thing, the tensions between, for example, an early Cyril happily affirming the continuance of two natures into the Incarnation in the Second Letter to Nestorius, and a late Cyril sternly insisting on only ‘one incarnate nature’ after the union— easily explicable, for moderns, in terms of the man’s historical development—could be explained in only three ways: the reduction of the earlier statement to the later; the reduction of the later statement to the earlier; or the reduction of both (as is urged by Leontius) to a third way of talking about christology, which is what he ‘really’ meant. In short, the rich variety of the real historical debate had to be reduced in some way to a monolithic uniformity. 77
.
That reduction could perhaps be achieved at one level by Leontius’ stratagem of proposing a meta-language, but it inevitably involved also, at other levels, the reconstruction of the patristic record in the monolithic image a theologian like Leontius imposed on it. No wonder, then, that troublesome documents were misquoted, quoted out of context, cut short, or dismissed as forgeries, while helpful and consistent documents were forged to meet the need.
. Testimonies of the Saints is not without its own examples of aporetic argument.78 Clearly, though, whole works were devoted to aporiae systematically developed to undermine the different doctrines of an opposing group. Leontius tells us that he has responded to one such collection of aporiae (in a work now lost to us), and in the present work we find him going on to propose counter-aporiae against the very people who propounded that collection of aporiae against him and/or his party.79 We can only guess at the length of the missing response, but Against the Nestorians gives us an idea of how long such a response could be.80 The attractions of aporetic argument to all parties—Chalcedonians, Severian antiChalcedonians, Nestorians—were obviously great, especially as the controversies between them involved imprecise and often contradictory-sounding formulae that invited adversaries gleefully to spell out their contradictions in aporetic form. For their own positions they would always, of course, try to claim consistency and clarity. In the present case we find Leontius—a man with a reputation for being ‘all-wise’ which must have signalled an aptitude for the kind of technical and logical prowess aporetic argument invited— delighting in exploring and exposing the inconsistencies of his Severian opponents’ christological language. The Severians’ language was based on Cyril’s post- letters, but that language had always been difficult to explain and defend—Cyril was taunted for it, and Eutyches seems likely to have been condemned as a heretic e.g. at – and at . . 80 Against the Nestorians occupies columns in Migne, compared with columns for Testimonies of the Saints and the Aporiae combined. 78 79
because of it—fundamentally because it was inconsistent in its use of the one word ‘nature’ for both the christological unity (‘one incarnate nature’) and the christological duality (‘out of two natures’). It was entirely predictable that a Chalcedonian like Leontius would, in controversy with Severians, use aporiae to hammer home the logical inconsistency inherent in saying that one incarnate nature came out of two natures before the union, and in continuing to assert that human and divine were unconfused and different in Christ while asserting that in Him they were united in one nature. He also used aporiae to undermine the paradigm used by Cyril and the Severians to explain and defend the notion of one nature out of two, the union of body and soul to produce a human nature, as well as to attack the language which that paradigm brought with it about the whole and the part. Of the sixty-three aporiae of Leontius found in our text, sixtyone address such weak points in the Severian position, and it may be useful to categorize them roughly in terms of the point in the Severian position on which they focus their attack: . There is one nature in Christ.81 . Christ’s one nature came to be out of two natures.82 . The human and divine natures became one nature just as body and soul become one human nature.83 . A duality of natures in Christ may be recognized only in thought.84 . There is one nature after the union.85 . Difference can be affirmed at the same time as one nature is affirmed.86 . There is one incarnate nature of God the Word, not one nature of the Word incarnate.87 . Christ, though one nature, may be said to have improved or suffered.88 . There is one nature and hypostasis in Christ.89 The positive case constantly implied by these arguments is that 81 82 83 85 86 87 88
Aporiae –, , , , –, –, –, , . Aporiae , , , , –, , , . Aporiae , , , , , , , , –. Aporia , –, . Aporiae –, –, –, , , –. Aporiae –, –. 89 Aporiae , –, –. Aporia .
84
Aporia .
for the superiority of Chalcedonian language, which has one set of terms to express Christ’s unity (‘person’, or ‘hypostasis’), and another to express His duality (‘nature’, or ‘substance’). There is one intriguing aporia, the thirty-first, which does not resemble the others. Instead, it quite intentionally indulges in a bit of quasi-logical sleight of hand which, as Leontius certainly recognizes, depends entirely on double meanings. The point seems to have been to have some fun at the expense of the Severians. The sixty-second aporia departs from the pattern in a quite different way, and is really not an aporia except formally: Severians accuse Chalcedon of introducing new terms unknown to the fathers, but Leontius and his party find that the fathers characteristically speak of two natures; Severians therefore must find fathers who speak of one nature, or yield the point.
. It is unfortunate that, from the moment of his rediscovery by Richard in the s, Leontius of Jerusalem was interpreted almost exclusively in terms of conceptual and theoretical issues having little to do with his own concerns, and a great deal to do with the twentieth century. For one thing, the twentieth-century struggle between conservative champions of an asymmetrical christology (in which the human Christ is overwhelmed by His divinity), and liberal champions of a more fully human Christ, meant that liberal scholars—who were in the majority—tended to sympathize with the Antiochene school in christology because of its emphasis on the independent human reality in Christ, and to feel a commensurate antipathy towards Cyril of Alexandria and his asymmetrical christology. The Council of Chalcedon, in that it adopted the Antiochene ‘two natures’ over Cyril’s ‘one incarnate nature’, came in for sympathetic treatment. Its statement of faith was seen as a balanced, statesmanlike achievement, nicely laying to rest the antithetical errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, and resolving all problems. When such scholars began to investigate the theologians like Leontius of Jerusalem who interpreted Chalcedon in a Cyrillian way, they adopted a highly suspicious attitude towards them, gave them the hostile epithet ‘neo-Chalcedonian’, and tended to conclude that they were, in fact, not theologians in good faith, but the instruments of an overreaching plan on the
part of the Emperor Justinian to impose on the Church his private (but not at all representative) Cyrillian-revivalist christology in place of the authentic teaching of Chalcedon.90 (The term has since, however, lost its pejorative connotation and become merely descriptive of a certain theological tendency, which is how it is used here.) In so far as Leontius was taken to be implicated in the real or supposed ecclesiastical–political agenda of Justinian, particularly as it concerned Constantinople II and that council’s relationship with Pope Vigilius, he became implicated, too, in modern concerns about the papal magisterium and how it relates to conciliar authority, about the independence of the Church from political authority, and thus about the evils of ‘caesaro-papism’. For at least myself, that interpretation of the era raised more historical questions than it answered. Could the Church really have experienced a sudden conversion from the powerfully Cyrillian faith it espoused in and to the remarkably Antiochenesounding language of Chalcedon? In what way did it make sense, if at all, to speak of a person as a Chalcedonian without specifying what tradition informed that person’s interpretation of the bare words of the council, a statement of faith foisted on the majority? What happened to the Cyrillians? Was it even possible for an emperor to impose his personal theology on the Church, as Justinian was often said to have done? Were the so-called neoChalcedonians really so unrepresentative of the mainstream? The answers to many of those questions turned out to be entirely negative, and an attempt was made to articulate a more accurate view of the post-Chalcedonian developments on purely historical grounds, which happened also to be a more positive view.91 Orthodox scholars, for whom Cyrillian christology was, and continues to be, the authoritative expression of a living, viable faith, began to argue for a more positive evaluation too.92 A more 90 The high-water mark of this way of thinking is represented by C. Moeller, ‘Le Chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonisme en Orient de à la fin du VIe siècle’, in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht (eds.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon i (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, ), –. On ‘neo-Chalcedonianism’ as a historical description of certain theologians, see Gray, Defense, –. 91 Gray, Defense. 92 e.g. J. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s, ); K. P. Wesche, ‘The Defense of Chalcedon in the th Century: The Doctrine of “Hypostasis” and Deification in the Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem’ (Thesis, Fordham, ); idem, ‘The Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem: Monophysite or Chalcedonian?’, SVTQ (), –.
sympathetic treatment of Leontius and his fellow neoChalcedonians thus began to emerge in the later twentieth century. The weighty contribution of Grillmeier needs to be assessed on its own. Over many decades Grillmeier undertook a complex re-evaluation of the whole development of christology that became noticeably more radical, more positive towards the neo-Chalcedonians in general, and Leontius of Jerusalem in particular, as volume II of Christ in Christian Tradition took shape.93 Grillmeier’s subtle assessment seems to be influenced by a number of things, including a deepening understanding (born of decades of participation in ecumenical dialogue) of the non-Chalcedonian churches of our time. That understanding surely helped him to the remarkable conclusion that Severus of Antioch actually represented, in his sternly Cyrillian christology, not a heretical ‘monophysitism’, but an alternative articulation of orthodoxy to that expressed in the particular conceptual vocabulary of Chalcedon.94 That train of thought paralleled another, earlier train of thought, a reconsideration of Chalcedon and what its statement of faith represents in the light of its only partial ‘reception’ by the Church as an ecumenical council.95 That train of thought led to the admission that, though Chalcedon had a certain status as ecumenical council, and one could talk about its having a positive theology, it had not spoken the final word on christology, and aspects of its implicit christology were left to be developed. In the light of those reflections, it is understandable that Grillmeier came to a positive evaluation of Leontius of Jerusalem since, whatever else Leontius was about, he was involved in arguing for a christology of hypostatic union, though not, in Grillmeier’s terms, in a fully adequate way. Grillmeier’s analysis of the entire history of christology is sharply focused on the conceptual and terminological issues, however; sometimes so much so that the rarefied discussion of those issues seems to be envisaged as taking place in the stratosphere. It often seems, indeed, to take place well away from the everyday life of the Church and the very human tensions over personalities and Grillmeier, Christ II2, pp. –. Ibid., –. 95 The initial statement of this perspective: A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition i, tr. J. Bowden (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, ), –. The theme developed: idem, Christ II1, –. 93 94
, ,
cherished traditions and old wounds that often keep churches in schism with each other much more effectively than theological disagreements little understood by anyone other than the theologians themselves. It is no surprise, then, that Grillmeier’s treatment of Leontius of Jerusalem has, literally, nothing to say about Testimonies of the Saints—which addresses tensions of just that sort—and devotes itself entirely to the conceptual and terminological issues addressed in the very different Against the Nestorians. Setting aside the Aporiae’s minor, and negative, contribution to clarifying christological language, the Leontius met in this volume is not interested in conceptual issues for their own sake, nor is he original in the concepts he does use. If Testimonies of the Saints was written between and , as is argued here, it followed the imperial edict on union by hypostasis by several years.96 That means the emperor and his advisers had already recognized the potential of that expression, used by Cyril, in the campaign to reconcile the anti-Chalcedonians; we cannot credit Leontius with discovering the formula’s potential. Testimonies of the Saints shows that what he was interested in was putting to practical use the theological language that was available. An apparently frustrating reluctance to define precisely in philosophical terms what a word like ‘hypostasis’ or an expression like ‘union by hypostasis’ meant was perhaps actually a tactical acceptance of an agreed commonsense understanding of such terms. On the basis of such an agreed sense, Leontius could and did use these words and expressions in the service of an agenda no less historically interesting, when understood on its own terms, than the intellectually more challenging achievements of Leontius of Byzantium.
. , , For reasons we shall never know, Leontius of Jerusalem’s Aporiae, Testimonies of the Saints, and Against the Nestorians—in that order— were copied along with works by other authors in a thirteenthcentury manuscript made in Byzantium.97 The fact that this manuscript included important works by and about Gregory of Nyssa was to prove fortuitous. No other works by Leontius, and no 96 97
The argument on dating is made in sect. XI below. Codex Marcianus gr. .
independent copy of the works we now have, has ever been found, so that the survival of Leontius into modern times depended entirely on that single manuscript’s fate. By a stroke of good luck, Gregory of Nyssa happened to be a favourite theologian of the fifteenth-century Metropolitan of Nicea, Bessarion, which explains why the manuscript was included in the extensive library of Greek fathers Bessarion took with him to Italy. It still bears his personal marking and catalogue number. Typically, in the scholion noting the contents of the volume, Bessarion writes: ‘Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Eunomius, and certain other works by different authors’; Leontius of Jerusalem was not worthy of specific mention.98 Eventually, the MS was part of Bessarion’s donation to the library of St Mark’s in Venice, and there this oldest (and only textually significant) copy of Leontius’ extant works has remained to this day, apart from the entire library’s brief removal to Paris by Napoleon.99 The likelihood that Leontius’ work would survive and become known improved in the sixteenth century, when two copies of the Venice manuscript were made independently by different copyists for the library amassed by the wealthy Bavarian book-collectors, the Fuggers. One copy remained in Bavaria, ending up in the Staatsbibliothek of Munich. There it attracted no scholarly attention until modern times.100 The Fugger library in large part, however, passed to Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria, and the second copy, dated , was part of Maximilian’s magnificent donation to Pope Gregory XV of what came to be known as the Vatican Library’s Palatine Collection.101 Leontius thus survived in a third library, but again without, it seems, being read. (A copy of the Vatican manuscript was made in the nineteenth century either for, or destined to be retained by, the philologist Jean-Antoine Letronne (-), who may have enjoyed playing with some of Leontius’ odd Greek, but who seems not to have studied him seriously or written about him.102) Leontius was at last read seriously, in the seventeenth century, In the upper right-hand margin of fo. . It bears the stamp of the Bibliothèque Nationale. Codex Monacensis gr. . It bears the Fugger library number () in the hand of Hieronymus Wolf, librarian to Johann Jakob Fugger. 101 Codex Vaticanus Pal. gr. . The copyist identifies himself at the end as ‘Cornelius Mourmouris of Nauplia’, and says he made the copy in in Venice. 102 Acquired, eventually, by the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and held as Par. Suppl. Gr. . 98 99
100
, ,
by the eminent French patrologist, François Combéfis, who even made rough copies of both works in his own hand, plus an equally rough Latin translation of Aporiae and Testimonies of the Saints. But Combéfis published nothing by or about Leontius, and whatever he thought about him or his significance died with him, his copies and the translation lying uncatalogued among his papers in the National Archives of France.103 Leontius’ fortunes began to change dramatically only in the middle of the eighteenth century, when a scholar from Verona, Antonio Bongiovanni, formed the plan of editing and translating portions of the Venice manuscript. In the end, in order to please Mansi, he contributed only the closing section of Testimonies of the Saints and selections from the florilegium, along with his Latin translation of both, as an appendix to Mansi’s Supplement to Cossart and Labbé’s collection of conciliar documents.104 In the process he departed from the order of the manuscript in the attempt, as Richard observed, to extract a commentary on Chalcedon from a text that has a rather different purpose.105 Bongiovanni himself recognized that this Leontius should not be confused with Leontius of Byzantium.106 Ominously, Mansi did not agree: he remarked, rather cavalierly, ‘it is not . . . easy to see why we ought to distinguish one Leontius from the other.’107 Leontius was fortunate, however, to have Angelo Mai, the Vatican librarian, as the editor of the first full transcription of his two surviving works, even though Mai transcribed the Vatican manuscript that was ready to hand, rather than the Venice MS of which it is a copy.108 His transcription was at least careful and intelligent, 103 VIII, , no. : Greek of Aporiae and Testimonies of the Saints; II, M, no. : Latin tr. of the same; IX, M, no. : Greek of Against the Nestorians. 104 J.-D. Mansi (ed.), Supplementum to P. Labbé and G. Cossart, Sacrorum conciliorum et decretorum collectio nova, vi (Luca, ), -, and repeated in subsequent editions of Mansi’s Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence: -) as an appendix to vii, –, as well as in A. Galland, Bibliotheca veterum patrum, xii (Venice, ), –, and subsequent editions. 105 M. Richard, ‘Léonce de Jérusalem et Léonce de Byzance’, Opera Minora, iii (Turnhout: Brepols, ), no. , p. n. . 106 Mansi, Supplementum, n. : ‘Our Leontius is not to be confused with the Nestorian [!] Leontius of Byzantium’. Galland agrees, Bibliotheca, xii, p. xxx. 107 Mansi, Collectio, . 108 A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanis codicibus edita, vii. – [Against the Monophysites] and ix. – [Against the Nestorians] (Rome: and ). In the meantime, Bessarion’s MS copy remained in obscurity in Venice. F. Diekamp was the only th-c. scholar to register there as a reader of it, but the great
and he attributed the works, properly, to Leontius of Jerusalem. Later in the nineteenth century, though, Migne essentially republished Mai’s edition of Against the Monophysites and Against the Nestorians, but included them among the collected works, both genuine and spurious, of that other theological Leontius of the same period, Leontius of Byzantium.109 The separate identity of Leontius of Jerusalem, and the individuality of his approach, were at a stroke condemned to remain thus obscured until they were rediscovered in the mid-twentieth century. Not only that: Migne’s anonymous editor was careless with the text, changed Mai’s careful punctuation, and provided only a mediocre Latin translation of his own, cobbled together where possible with Bongiovanni’s (awkwardly, since the latter was made from a different MS). Little help was offered to anyone who wished to approach Leontius of Jerusalem through the pages of the Patrologia.
. , , The one nineteenth-century scholar besides Mai to pay any serious attention to Leontius of Jerusalem’s works, Friedrich Loofs, made matters worse rather than better, for he dismissed his works as revisions of originals by Leontius of Byzantium—the work, then, of a seventh-century hack. To Loofs, Leontius of Jerusalem’s works were, to use Richard’s words, no more than ‘a shadow of Leontius of Byzantium’; they were hardly likely to be worth studying.110 The credit for the modern rediscovery of Leontius of Jerusalem belongs to Marcel Richard, whose article laid out the classic case, now universally accepted, for distinguishing Leontius of Jerusalem from Leontius of Byzantium, and for letting him emerge as indeed a contemporary of the latter and of other Leontii of the period, but a contemporary with a quite different vocabulary, a quite different approach to theology, and a quite different agenda.111 Richard’s case is too long and detailed to patrologist noted, disappointingly, not that he had studied Leontius, but that he had copied the Life of Gregory of Nyssa. 109 PG lxxxvi1, –i (Against the Nestorians) and lxxxvi2, – (Against the Monophysites). 110 Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, –; Richard, ‘Léonce’, n. . 111 Richard, ‘Léonce’, –.
, ,
repeat here. Suffice it to say that he shows convincingly that there are fundamental differences between the two Leontii on the philosophical terminology to be used to describe the human soul and its relationship to the body; on the use of scientific examples (for which our Leontius has a characteristic fondness quite absent from Leontius of Byzantium); and on the application of neo-Chalcedonian formulae (Leontius of Jerusalem uses them; Leontius of Byzantium does not).112 Leontius of Jerusalem thus could stand out, at last, as an author in his own right. And scholars did at last begin to write about him. Unfortunately, as has been noted, the resonances attached to being a neo-Chalcedonian by scholars like Richard and his successors stood in the way of a full appreciation. It would be helpful if we could identify Leontius as one of the Leontii about whom historical information is available. A plausible case can be made for only one candidate: Leontius, the ‘representative of the monks in the Holy City [Jerusalem]’, present at the Conversations of .113 That this Palestinian monk was theologically sophisticated and knowledgeable about the issues between pro- and anti-Chalcedonians seems certain, as there would have been no other reason for his presence. We know of two Leontii who fit that description: Leontius of Jerusalem, and Leontius of Byzantium. Both are, suitably, associated with Palestine, our Leontius by the manuscript’s description of him as a monk of Jerusalem, Leontius of Byzantium by Cyril of Scythopolis’ information about an Origenist monk by that name active in the Judaean Desert monasteries.114 Richard favoured the former, but knew the case could not be proven conclusively.115 The weight of scholarly opinion at the moment favours the latter.116 The case cannot be proven either way, and no firm conclusions can be drawn on this basis about either Leontius. There is, however, internal evidence that helps with establishing a firm date and situation. Richard dated Leontius’ activity to the period –. He took Leontius to be talking of Severus as if he The argument on these points: –. See n. above. 114 Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, in E. Schwartz (ed.), Kyrillos von Skythopolis, TU 2 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, ), , . 115 Richard, ‘Léonce’, –. 116 Grillmeier, Christ II2, , ; D. B. Evans, Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology, DOS (), –. 112 113
had died, in that he listed him with the long-deceased Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus, and did not address him directly.117 If Severus had died, Testimonies of the Saints must have been written after .118 Richard noted, too, that Leontius talked of John of Scythopolis as though he was a contemporary; since he can have been Bishop of Scythopolis no earlier than , and no later than , Leontius was writing within that period.119 In his view, Leontius’ near silence about issues connected with the Three Chapters showed, too, that he wrote before , when the Three Chapters Controversy began to rage. Richard’s dating of Leontius’ floruit as – has generally been accepted, mostly faute de mieux. As will be seen, there are good reasons to modify his conclusions slightly. First, however, the few serious alternatives to Richard’s dating that have been proposed should be dealt with. Michel Breydy argued that the abbreviated citations from the fathers in Testimonies of the Saints compared with those in the Doctrina patrum de incarnatione Verbi and in John Maron’s works meant that he had succeeded them, and therefore wrote in the midseventh century, but his argument has not found support.120 It seems more plausible to ascribe such variations simply to different versions of an original florilegium used differently by the Leontii and others, the proliferation of florilegia in the period being extraordinary, and the difficulty of establishing clear connections between them being notorious. It is better to date Leontius of Jerusalem on the basis of more straightforward evidence. More recently, Dirk Krausmüller has made a determined and intelligent effort to rehabilitate Loofs’s late dating for Leontius’ activity, though not his theory about the nature of the texts.121 Krausmüller’s case rests on odd allusions in both texts. A central instance is the reference to ‘Jacobites’ in the tale with which Testimonies of the Saints in its present form ends, since that was a way of describing Syrian anti-Chalcedonians not current until the Richard, ‘Léonce’, . The text is at . Richard, ‘Léonce’, –. 119 Richard, ‘Léonce’, –. The text is at –. 120 M. Breydy, ‘Les Attestations patristiques parallèles et leurs nuances chez les ps-Léonce et Jean Maron’, in P. O. Scholz and R. Stempel (eds.), Nubia et Oriens Christianus: Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum . Geburtstag (Cologne: Dinter, ), –; Breydy, Jean Maron, Exposé de la foi et autres opuscules, CSCO, Scriptores Syri (Louvain: E. Peeters, ), –. 121 D. Krausmüller, ‘Leontius of Jerusalem, a Theologian of the Seventh Century’, JTS, (), –. 117 118
, ,
seventh century.122 On stylistic grounds alone, though, the story is unmistakeably the work of a later writer (there is not a trace of Leontius’ characteristic style in it), evidently the first copyist. The copyist’s memory of this story, well known, as he says, in ‘our own times and places’ (implying a distinction from Leontius’ times and places), was apparently triggered by Leontius’ reference to miracles worked by unexpected persons. A reference to Lombards in the text is likewise said by Krausmüller to be anachronistic, but pre-seventh-century references to them are in fact to be found elsewhere.123 A curious reference in Against the Nestorians to an emperor’s son being crowned in early childhood or even in utero is said to imply familiarity on the part of Leontius’ readers with a just possible, but not attested, in utero coronation early in the reign of Heraclius (i.e. c. ). That year was marked at the very least by an intense concern about establishing a legitimate successor.124 The reference occurs, as Krausmüller recognizes, in one of many citations from a work by a fully fledged and articulate Nestorian, otherwise unknown to us, to which Leontius is responding.125 We cannot assume, though, that this Nestorian knew who Leontius’ audience was, or what historical information they possessed, or even that he had Leontius in mind when he wrote. Moreover, given the universal condemnation of Nestorians in Byzantium, the writer may well have lived in Persia, and be referring to concerns about and practices in imperial succession there. In any case, we should be wary of mistaking what seems to be a perfectly typical display of arcane knowledge by Leontius’ learned adversary for a contemporary reference. Finally, the reference to an aphorism, ‘How many souls have been slaughtered during the conquest of Jerusalem!’, does not necessarily imply the Persian conquest of .126 It may as easily refer to either the Babylonian destruction of , or the Roman of , both well known 122 The passage: –. The reference to Jacobites occurs at . Krausmüller, –. 123 The reference: PG lxxxvi1, . Krausmüller himself has graciously conceded in correspondence the existence, after all, of early references, citing as an example Pseudo-Caesarius. See R. Riedinger (ed.), Pseudo-Kaisarios, Die Erotapocriseis, GCS (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, ), . 124 The reference: PG lxxxvi1; Krausmüller, –. 125 The existence of these citations from the anonymous Nestorian was first noted in print by L. Abramowski, ‘Ein nestorianischer Traktat bei Leontius von Jerusalem’, IIIe Symposium Syriacum , OCA (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, ), –. 126 The reference: PG lxxxvi1, h; Krausmüller, –.
in literature. Attempts at establishing a post-sixth-century date for Leontius have not, therefore, proven convincing. It is taken, here, that Richard was close to correct about the dating, but not absolutely correct. The point at issue is the status of Severus. Some of the references to Severus, caricaturing him to anti-Chalcedonians as ‘your own authoritative guide’, and especially as ‘your patriarch’,127 seem much more likely to be references to a living person than to a dead one. The fact that Leontius does not directly address Severus, too, has a much more natural explanation: Leontius’ evident strategy of driving a wedge between Severus’ followers in Syria and their exiled patriarch, bringing them to the point of returning to unity with Chalcedonians despite his opposition and without his participation. In that light the absence of direct address to Severus is very much consonant with his being alive, and quite intentional. Assuming that Severus was in fact alive at the time of writing, then, Testimonies of the Saints was written before . If John became Bishop of Scythopolis no earlier than , we have a fairly firm way to date at least Testimonies of the Saints: it was written sometime between and . That conclusion fits the circumstantial case perfectly. It cannot be demonstrated for a certainty that Leontius was at the Conversations of , though he may well have been, but it can be said that the agenda for the Conversations, including the severing of Severians from Severus, is precisely the agenda of Testimonies of the Saints. Moreover, Leontius is clearly familiar not only with the issues that were discussed at the conversations, but also with the strategies that had been tried but had proven counter-productive, since he takes particular care to see that his own way of addressing issues such as the Apollinarian forgeries and the deposition of Dioscorus is much more diplomatic. As was observed above, if he was not present at the conversations, he seems to have had detailed information about what happened at them. Testimonies of the Saints belongs to the s. As for the Aporiae, the lack of internal clues makes their dating a good deal more problematic. Since their dating is connected with the question of other, now-missing works of Leontius (about whose existence we know something only because of Leontius’ own references to them) it makes sense to turn to that question. 127
and .
. There once existed a larger corpus by Leontius of Jerusalem, connected with works by anti-Chalcedonian and Nestorian authors now no longer extant either. On the Nestorian side, we note that Against the Nestorians presupposes a collection of aporiae by an unknown Nestorian to which Leontius responds, often at very great length, citing it (often at great length too) at the opening of each chapter. The sheer length and the detailed nature of these citations tells against the easy dismissal of them as inventions of Leontius’ own imagination—though he is capable of putting words in his opponents’ mouths in Testimonies of the Saints—and no less an authority on late Nestorianism than Luise Abramowski has judged them authentic.128 In the preface to Against the Nestorians, Leontius lists eight themes he plans to address by way of response, one per book, but the work as we have it ends, limpingly, with the seventh book; either he did not write the eighth book after all, or else it once existed but now, like the response to the anti-Chalcedonians’ aporiae, it is lost.129 On the anti-Chalcedonian side, we note that, at the beginning of the Aporiae, Leontius says: ‘Seeing that we’ve confronted these people’s aporiae, we’d now like to counter-propose aporiae ourselves on a few points out of many’.130 At least two works in an ongoing exchange between Leontius and Severian antiChalcedonians preceded his Aporiae, then: a set of aporiae from the anti-Chalcedonian side, and a response to those aporiae by Leontius. We have neither. Richard supposes that the lost response to the anti-Chalcedonians was at least as large a work as Against the Nestorians, which is likewise a response to aporiae. He suggests further that Leontius’ Aporiae and Testimonies of the Saints were essentially appendices to that work. In his view, the response would have taken up a complete codex, with these appendices beginning a second codex, the rest of which was taken up by Against the Nestorians. This would explain how we end up with the works that we have: the second codex was copied in the thirteenth century, along with works by other authors, but the first was not. Richard sees the anti-Chalcedonians’ opening protestation in 128 130
See n. above. .
129
The preface: PG lxxxvi1, –.
Testimonies of the Saints, ‘[b]ut why . . . do you push us towards your teaching, pressing us on every side?’, as an imagined response to the mauling they have received in the Aporiae. In this reconstruction, these two extant works are thus closely tied together.131 Richard’s case for the existence of an earlier response to antiChalcedonian aporiae by Leontius is convincing, but his speculation as to its size and original form of publication remains no more than speculation. The opening of the Aporiae shows that this work is closely connected with the missing response to antiChalcedonian aporiae, as he supposes, but a close connection with either is not so convincing for Testimonies of the Saints. For one thing, it is a fact that, though both our texts are plainly addressed to the same anti-Chalcedonian audience profoundly under the influence of Severus of Antioch, the aporiae adopt a combative, dismissive, and negative tone towards that audience suggesting a situation of conflict, while the discussion of the patristic evidence in Testimonies of the Saints is notably more eirenic, bespeaking a quite different situation. That conclusion stands even when account is taken of the genre involved in aporiae, a genre that requires the antagonistic demonstration of the illogicality of the opponent’s position. Moreover, whereas Leontius accurately cites a text from Cyril of Alexandria in the twenty-first aporia, evidently having the text ready to hand, in Testimonies of the Saints he has no such text available, misquotes it rather badly from memory, and is reduced to ending with the lame assertion that this is what Cyril says, ‘or something of the sort’, even though an accurate citation would have been useful to him.132 It may make sense to date the Aporiae to a period when imperial policy hardened against the antiChalcedonians, perhaps the period of the edict On Heretics of . Testimonies of the Saints, as has been argued, belongs to the period –.
. The text is based on our single textually interesting manuscript, Codex Marcianus gr. , the source, directly or indirectly, of the 131 132
Richard, ‘Léonce’, –. The text: . The texts are to be found at and .
few other known copies.133 Emendations and conjectures have been kept to a minimum, though punctuation has been modernized sparingly, and the opening words of sentences have been capitalized. The manuscript contains some variant spellings, and its approach to accenting is not always in accord with modern practice. These have been preserved, as being correct for the period; they will represent no barrier to the reader’s comprehension. In order to assist the reader, column numbers and letters from the Migne edition are given in the margins of both the Greek and the English. Within the Greek text, folio numbers of the Venice manuscript are given in square brackets. Note: The value of presenting text and translation in parallel lies in the ease and accuracy with which a reader can move from the translation to the text on which it is based. It is therefore essential that the two be aligned closely, as they are here. However, it has often been necessary to use more English than Greek words to produce a readable version in modern English of what Leontius says. On the other hand, where Leontius has cited the fathers extensively, the footnotes required to identift the citations often mean that the Greek sometimes takes up more room than the English. In these cases it has been necessary to sacrifice aesthetics to utility, and to have some pages look as though they contain less text than they should. 133 The manuscript is accurately described in Mioni’s catalogue: E. Mioni, Bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci Manuscripti I—Thesaurus Antiquus codices – = Indici e cataloghi, vi (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato. Libreria dello stato, ), –.
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS
Το πανσ φου µοναχο κρ Λεοντου το Ι εροσολυµτου µαρτυραι τν α γων, κα α να´ λυσι το δ γµατο α"τν
[v] “ Αλλα` τ %µα˜ ” φασ “πανταχ θεν περιτρ(χοντε , ε) τ*ν +µετ(ραν δ ξαν συνελανετε; Ηµε/ γα`ρ 0ν α"τολεξε διδασκαλαν πατρικ*ν 1σµεν περ Χριστο, ε1τουν µαν φσιν το Θεο Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νην κατα` τ5ν α6γιον Αθανα´σιον κα Κριλλον· +µε/ δ9 :ν φατ9 ξενοφωναν ο"δαµο το/ πατρα´σι ;ητ κειµ(νην ε+ρσκοµεν, ο?τοι, @ +µ(τερο καθηγητ* ΣεβCρο βοD, E πλε/στοι τν αγων πατ(ρων α διαβλFτω GχρFσαντο τH τν δο φσεων φωνH—π οIν τα ναντα +µε/ λ(γετε;—α λλ Jντω κατα` τ5 ε)ρηµ(νον τH σοφK, προφασζεται α ν*ρ θ(λων χωρζεσθαι φλου.1 Επε Nτι ο"δ9ν )σχυρ5ν O λ γου αPξιον O α κριβ9 Qχει +µ/ν % α φορµ* τC πρ5 %µα˜ διεν(ξεω αRτη, Sτοµω κα πολυτρ πω σTν ΘεU παραστFσοµεν. Πρτα µ9ν γα`ρ ε) τ*ν Gν δυα´δι φσεων α διαιρ(τW @µολογαν Gπ το Κυρου σ(βοντε , περ τ*ν Sτ(ραν διεφωνοµεν +µ/ν Gξαγγελαν το δ γµατο , ο?τοι, α ποκρνασθε %µ/ν. Αλλ 1σω πρ5 τα´δε ε1ποιτε· “Τ οIν Nλω τ*ν ε"σεβC σηµασαν Gχοση τC πρaτη φωνC , δευτ(ραν +µε/ καινουργε/τε, ε) µF τι σκαιωρε/τε κατα` τC Gννοα ; Gξ5ν γα`ρ ε)πε/ν κα πρ5 +µα˜ ε"καρω , Nτι kν % χρCσι % α"τ*, τοτων % πολυτ(λεια περιττF.” Αλλα` σκεπτ(ον E τα` α"τα` κα το/ τ*ν Sτ(ραν φων*ν α ρχCθεν προβαλλοµ(νοι , κα πα˜σαν τοια´νδε ε"σεβC @µολογαν, α πορηθFσεται· τ γα`ρ αXν, ε) ταυτ ν Gστι τU @ λ γο σα`ρξ Gγ(νετο,12 τ5 λ(γειν µαν φσιν το Θεο Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νην, αRτη %µ/ν Gπεισην(χθη; τ δ9 ε) ταυτ ν Gστι τU Gγ` κα @ πατ*ρ lν Gσµ9ν,13 προσεφρα´σθη κα τ5 @µοοσιον το Πατρ5 πρ5 τ5ν ΥZ ν; Ε) δ9 Jντω δια´ τινα δο φσει λ(γοντα Χριστο, )δω Qχουσαν Sκατ(ραν ο" µ νον κατα` λ γον φυσικ5ν, α λλα` κα κατα` τ*ν Rπαρξιν α"τ*ν τC +ποστα´σεω , δελαιε—, % ληφθε/σα πα´σχει φσι , % δ9 λαβοσα, α παθ* µ(νει.”167 Γρηγορου Νσση , Gκ το ε) παρθεναν Gπανου· “ s Ηλθε Θε5 θνητ τε, φσει δο ε) qν διερα , τ*ν µ9ν κευθοµ(νην, τ*ν δ α µφαδην µερ πεσι.”168 169 Αλλ α?ται µ9ν τν %µετ(ρων· α"τν δ9 τν καθ %µν λυττaντων, ε) Sκοσιοι κατα` θεαν συν(λασιν O α κοσιοι ο"κ οhδα, τοιαδε δ9 Nµω φωνα φ(ρονται. Αµφιλοχου το Σδη , pν φασ µ νον α προσπαθ κα α δε Qχειν τ*ν 〈µαν φσιν〉 Gν τH συν δW, Gκ τC κατ α"τC γραφεση α"τU GπιστολC πρ5 Λ(οντα τ5ν βασιλ(α· “Καταφεξονται γα`ρ ε1 τινα διδασκα´λου δο φσει ε)ρηκ τα .”170 Gal. : Ps.-Eustathius of Antioch, Commentary on Psalm . Not otherwise attested. Ps.-Chrysostom, Letter to Caesarius. Not otherwise attested. 165 Ibid. Latin attested PG lii, . 166 Amphilochius of Iconium, To Seleucus = fr. A, Cavallera, . 167 Ibid. = fr. E -, Cavallera, . 168 Actually Gregory of Nazianzus, Poems I, , , PG xxxvii, (Latin). 169 in marg. σχο(λιον) MS 170 Amphilochius of Side, Letter to the Emperor Leo, cf. PG lxxvii, . For other attestations see M. Geerard, Clavis patrum graecorum, iii (Turnhout: Brepols, ), n. 162 163 164
Eustathius of Antioch, from his Exposition of the Fifteenth Psalm: ‘God sent His son, born of a woman—not the plural of “born”, but the singular, for the person is a single entity. I did not say the nature is a single entity—Perish the thought! God forbid!—nor did I say the same substance belongs to flesh and divinity, but I did say there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist, made known in the difference of natures in all respects.’ John Chrysostom, from the Letter to Caesarius: ‘To think that one nature was completed from that moment, an ineffable mixture of divinity and flesh, is the absurd notion of the deranged Apollinarius. This is the exceedingly impious heresy of those who introduce mixing and coalescence.’ And towards the end: ‘Let us flee those who make up the fairy-tale of one nature after the union. Through the idea of the one nature they hasten to attribute suffering to the impassible God.’ Amphilochius of Iconium, from the Second Letter to Seleucus: ‘If they say He is of one substance, ask them “How is He impassible in His divinity, then, but passible in His flesh? Whatever is of one essence is the same through and through; either it is all impassible, or it is all passible.” ’ And after a little: ‘I say there is one Christ, the Son, belonging to two natures, denying neither the divine nature nor the human. He suffers, therefore, not in His divinity, but in His humanity. That is, Christ suffered in flesh, but the divinity did not suffer—give up that hostile and blasphemous business, you wretch! The nature that was assumed suffers, but the nature which did the assuming remains impassible.’ Gregory of Nyssa, from his Praise of Virginity: ‘God came as a mortal, drawing two natures—one hidden, the other open to all articulate beings—together into one.’ But these texts belong to our people. Phrases of the very same sort are produced, nonetheless, that belong to people who rave against us. Whether [in these phrases] they’re speaking of their own free will, at God’s prompting, or involuntarily, I have no idea. Amphilochius of Side, whom these people describe as the only one to maintain one nature in the synod dispassionately and voluntarily, from the letter written by him to the Emperor Leo against the council: ‘They will have recourse to certain teachers who have spoken of two natures.’
ΣεβFρου το αZρετικο το µιξοφυστου, τα/ Ιουλου κα Αµβροσου χρFσεσιν οRτω Gπιλ(γοντο · “ Ο δ9 κα τα` 1δια γινaσκων, κα τ*ν lνωσιν φυλα´ττων, ο]τε τα` φσει ψεδεται, ο]τε τ*ν lνωσιν α γνοFσει.”171 Το α"το Gκ τν κατα` το Γραµµατικο· “∆ο τα` φσει Gν τU ΧριστU νοοµεν, τ*ν µ9ν κτιστFν, τ*ν δ9 αPκτιστον.”172 “ Αλλ ο"δε Gγρα´ψατο τ*ν Gν Χαλκηδ νι σνοδον, τ*ν αPλογον τατην γραφFν· ‘Τ δFποτε δο φσει {ν µασαν περ τC το Εµµανου*λ Sνaσεω διαλαµβα´νοντε ;’ Ο"δε τατην GστFσατο τ*ν κατηγοραν, α λλ Gκενην µα´λα δικαω · ‘Τ δFποτε µ* α κολουθFσαντε τU αγW ΚυρλλW Gκ δο φσεων Qφασαν εhναι τ5ν Χριστ ν;’ ”173 “Ο" παυσ µεθα λ(γοντε τονυν, E ‘∆ειξα´τω τ τ*ν Gν Χαλκηδ νι σνοδον, O τ5ν τ µον Λ(οντο , τ*ν “καθ +π στασιν lνωσιν” @µολογFσαντα , O “σνοδον φυσικ*ν”, O “Gξ α µφο/ν lνα Χριστ ν”, O “µαν φσιν το Θεο Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νην”, κα τ τε γνωσ µεθα, E κατα` τ5ν σοφaτατον Κριλλον θεωρK µ νY α νακρνοντε τ*ν ο"σιaδη διαφορα`ν τν συνενεχθ(ντων α πορρFτω ε) lν, 1σασι. Κα E Sτ(ρα % το Λ γου φσι , κα Sτ(ρα % τC σαρκ5 , κα E δο τα` α λλFλοι συνενηνεγµ(να καθορσι τU νU, διtστσι δ9 ο"δαµ .’ ”174 Κατοι γε @ τατα λ(γων, Gν τH Gκθ(σει τC πστεω α"το πρ5 Νηφα´λιον @ α"τ5 φησ· “Τ5 λ(γειν δο φσει Gπ Χριστο, πα´ση κατηγορα Gπµεστον, ε) κα +π5 πλει νων αγων πατ(ρων ε1ρηται.”175 Κα µεθ lτερα· “Κα µ* ε1πY E τH λ(ξει τν ‘δο φσεων’ τιν9 τν πατ(ρων GχρFσαντο· GχρFσαντο γα`ρ α διαβλFτω nσπερ ε1ποµεν, κατα` δ9 τ5ν χρ νον το αγου Κυρλλου, τC ν σου τν Νεστορου καινοφωνιν τα` Gκκλησα Gπινεµοµ(νη , Gπ πλ(ον % λ(ξι α πεδοκιµα´σθη.”176
171 Actually Ps.-Julius, On the Union = Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. . Cited as a text of Julius at above. 172 Severus, Against the Grammarian iii, , CSCO xciv, . Cited also at below. 173 174 Ibid. iii, , . Ibid. . 175 Original not extant. Cited in Against the Grammarian iii, , ed. J. Lebon, CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series , vi (), . 176 Ibid. .
Severus the heretic, the nature-mixer, who adds this comment to citations from Julius and Ambrose: ‘Yet the man who both recognizes the properties and protects the union does not speak falsely about the natures, nor is he ignorant of the union.’ The same, from Against the Grammarian: ‘We understand there are two natures in Christ, one created, the other uncreated.’ ‘But no one indicted the Council of Chalcedon on this irrational charge: “Why ever did they specify two natures, introducing division into the Emmanuel’s union?” No one laid that charge. Rather, and quite justly, people laid the following charge: “Why did they not, following holy Cyril, say that Christ is out of two natures?” ’ ‘That is why we will not stop saying “Someone needs to demonstrate that the Council of Chalcedon, or the Tome of Leo, confesses ‘union by hypostasis’, or ‘a natural combination’, or ‘one Christ out of both’, or ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’. Then we shall know that, like the supremely wise Cyril, it is in thought only that they recognize the substantial difference between things brought together ineffably into one. It is by the mind that they need to observe that the Word’s nature is one thing, the flesh’s another, and that two things have been brought together with each other; they must not separate them in any way.” ’ Indeed, the same person who makes that assertion says the following in his exposition of the faith Against Nephalius: ‘To speak of two natures in Christ is completely blameworthy, even though the expression is used by the majority of the holy fathers.’ After other things: ‘You must not say that some of the fathers made use of the two-natures formula, for they made use of it in a blameless way, as we said. In holy Cyril’s time, though, when the sickness of Nestorius’ new formulations spread through the churches, that expression was rejected all the more as unworthy.’
6 Ωστε οIν, > ο?το , κα πα´λαι α δ κιµα, κα Gπ πλ(ον µετα` Νεστ ριον. Π οIν “α διαβλFτω [r ] GχρFσαντο” α"τH; Εhτα δ(, ε) διαβ(βληται κα α πεδοκιµα´σθη κατα` Νεστ ριον, π ο" κατα` τ δε γρα´φετα τι O κατηγορε/ τC Gν Χαλκηδ νι συν δου µετα` Νεστ ριον ο]ση , α λλα` δι τι µ* κα “Gκ δο” λ(γει κα “τ*ν καθ +π στασιν lνωσιν” Χριστο; 6 Οτι δ9 λ(γει τα´δε, τ α µφιβα´λλει; Ε) γα`ρ % σνοδο ψηφιζοµ(νη φησ ν οRτω · “Τα` το µακαρου Κυρλλου το τC Αλεξανδρ(ων Gκκλησα γενοµ(νου ποιµ(νο συνοδικα` Gπιστολα` πρ5 Νεστ ριον, κα πρ5 τοT τC ΑνατολC δεχ µεθα αρµοδα ο]σα ε) Qλεγχον τC Νεστορου φρενοβλαβεα ”, Gν αu Gπιστολα/ κα τ*ν φυσικ*ν κα τ*ν καθ +π στασιν lνωσιν Qφη @ πατ*ρ, π ο"χ τα` α"τα` @µολογε/ συµφωνε/, κα pν α ποδ(χεται Gν το/σδε; Ηµν δ9 προλεγ ντων τ9 κα συλλεγ ντων τ5 “Gκ δο φσεων” εhναι τ5ν Κριον, µετα` το κα “Gν δο φσεσιν” εhναι, κα λεγ ντων, κα τ*ν σνοδον κα πα˜σαν φσιν κα αPγγελον Gξ ο"ρανο,177 ε) µ* οRτω Gφρ νουν, α ναθεµατιζ ντων, δια` τ µ* καταδ(χονται α"το τα´δε συνοµολογε/ν, λ(γοντε κα τ5 “Gκ δο” µετα` το “Gν δο” σTν %µ/ν, κα ΣεβCρον κα ∆ι σκορον κα τοT µετ α"τν, ε) µ* οRτω Gφρ νουν, α ναθεµατζειν αZροµενοι; Φλαβιανο τε το µακαρτου τC Gκθ(σεω Gχοση · “Κα µαν δ9 φσιν το Θεο Λ γου, σεσαρκωµ(νην µ(ντοι κα GνανθρωπFσασαν, λ(γειν ο" παραιτοµεθα δια` τ5ν Gξ α µφο/ν lνα Κριον %µν Ιησον Χριστ ν”,178 κα τοτο τC συν δου ποτνιωµ(νη , π ο"χ κατα` πα´ντα τα´δε τοτοι συµφθ(γγεται % σνοδο ; Λ(ων δ9 @ θαυµα´σιο , µιD κυρaσει κα συν ψει, πα´ντα τα´δε τα` κατα` Νεστορου ε)ρηµ(να Gν τH Gν Εφ(σW συν δW +π5 το µακαρου Κυρλλου, Gπισφραγζεται κα κυρο/, λ(γων· “Τα` µ(ντοι γε τC πρ τερον Gν Εφ(σW συν δου, vστινο @ τC @σα µνFµη Κριλλο τ τε προFδρευεν κατα` Νεστορου )δικ πραχθ(ντα διαµεν(τωσαν· µFπω % τ τε καταδικασθε/σα δυσσ(βεια δι α"τ5 τοτο καθ @τιον Sαυτ*ν α πατFσY, Nτιπερ Ε"τυχ* δικαω α ναθεµατισθε καταβ(βληται· % καθαρ τη γα`ρ τC πστεω κα διδασκαλα , :ν τU α"τU πνεµατι κηρττοµεν, nσπερ οZ α6γιοι πατ(ρε %µν, κα τ*ν Νεστορου, κα τ*ν Ε"τυχο µετα` τν %γουµ(νων α"τν, Gπση καταδικα´ζει κα διaκει κακοδοξαν.”179 177 178 179
Gal. : Flavian of Constantinople, Letter to Theodosius, ACO ii, , , . Leo the Great, Letter , ACO ii, , (), .
Well then, my good man: this saying was both rejected some time ago, and rejected all the more after Nestorius, was it? How is it, then, that ‘they made use of it in a blameless way’? How is it that, if it was calumniated and rejected on account of Nestorius, no one indicts or condemns the Council of Chalcedon—which took place after Nestorius—for this, but rather because it doesn’t say ‘out of two’, or speak of Christ’s ‘union by hypostasis’? But who doubts that it does say these things? If the synod, when it votes, says ‘We accept the synodical letters to Nestorius and to the Anatolians of blessed Cyril, pastor of the Alexandrian church, as being suitable for the refutation of Nestorius’ folly’—in which letters the father speaks both of ‘natural union’, and of ‘union by hypostasis’—in what way is the synod not confessing exactly what the one with whom it agrees confesses, and whom it accepts in these letters? Since we publicly assert and maintain the statement that the Lord is ‘out of two natures’ along with the statement that He is ‘in two natures’, since we speak of a combination, and of an entire nature, and since we anathematize even an angel from heaven if he doesn’t think likewise, what possible reason can these people have for refusing to agree with us on these, using both ‘out of two’ and ‘in two’, and electing to anathematize Severus, Dioscorus, and those with them, if they don’t think the same? Since blessed Flavian’s explanation says ‘We are not looking for an excuse not to speak of one nature of the Word of God—made flesh, of course, and become man—because our one Lord Jesus Christ is out of both’, and since the synod loudly proclaims this, in what way, in the light of all this, does the synod not agree with these assertions? The admirable Leo confirms and ratifies in one comprehensive ratifying statement everything said against Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus under blessed Cyril, when he says: ‘They must certainly stand stoutly by the actions, particularly against Nestorius, of the first Council of Ephesus that Cyril of blessed memory presided over at the time, lest the impiety condemned at that time should on this very account deceive itself over any issue at all, seeing that Eutyches, being rightly anathematized, was deposed. The purity of the faith and of the teaching, which we proclaim by the same spirit as did our holy fathers, condemns and banishes Nestorius’ and Eutyches’ infamy equally, along with their predecessors.’
Ακουστ(ον δ9 Qτι το λ(γοντο , Nτι κα “πλεου τν πατ(ρων α διαβλFτω GχρFσαντο φωνH” τH “Gν δο” Gπ Χριστο, κα Nτι ο"χ E λ(γουσαν τ5 “Gν δο” γρα´φεται τ*ν σνοδον, α λλ E τ5 “Gκ δο” µ* ε)ποσαν, κα τα` λοιπα` αo φησν. Ο"κ οhδα γα`ρ π λαθ`ν Sαυτ5ν nσπερ Gν RπνW λαλν, Gν το/ Sαυτο συγγρα´µµασι πα´λιν φησ· “Νκτωρ κα µεθ %µ(ραν τα/ ββλοι τν πατ(ρων στρεφ µενο , ο]πω τινα` µ(χρι κα νν τν πατ(ρων ε+ρε/ν GδυνFθην [v] φσει Gπ Χριστο δο δοξα´ζοντα, καθα´περ οZ Gν Χαλκηδ νι συνελθ ντε Gδ ξασαν, κα Gν δυσ ν α"τ5ν α πεφFναντο φσεσιν.”180 Τατα´ γε, ε) µ* τ5 τC +ποθ(σεω τν ζητουµ(νων σεπτ5ν πρ5 ε"λα´βειαν αPγχει τ5ν α κροατ*ν, ο"κ ε) αPµετρον Gγχσει γ(λωτα, ο+τωσ α"το Sαυτ5ν α µνηµ νω O α ταλαφρ νω O θεηλα´τω , ο"κ οhδα π λ(γειν, α ντικαταρρα´σσοντο ; Κα %µ/ν µ9ν σκοπ5 ο"κ eν, E @ Κριο µα´ρτυ , α νδρ5 @µοφυο αPγνοιαν iνειδζειν, O σαθρ τητα λ γων α λλοτρων Sτ(ροι δηµοσιεειν, α λλ Gπε τ5 µ9ν κατ α"τ5ν δ γµα κεκνηται, @ δ9 θερµ α ντιποιησα´µενο τοδε το δ γµατο , α"τ5 ο]πω Qφθη πανεκκλησW συν δW κατακριθCναι, α λλα` ψFφοι βασιλικα/ κα Zερατικα/ GκβληθCναι το θρ νου τC Αντιοχ(ων, α ναγκα/ον παραστCσαι τ*ν ποι τητα το α νδρ , µFπω Gκ τC τινν περ α"το φατριαστικC τ5 Nλον προλFψεω Gνδ ξου, τα/ Gκενου διδασκαλαι α βασανστω οZ νηπιaτεροι κατασροιντο. P Εστι γα`ρ τοι σδε @ α ν*ρ κα Gν αPλλοι το/ +ποτεταγµ(νοι α"το συγγρα´µµασι θεωροµενο κα σµφωνο , E ε)πε/ν, τ*ν α συµφωναν Sαυτο γινωσκ µενο . ΣεβFρου Gκ τν κατα` το Γραµµατικο λ γου τρτου, κεφαλαου θ ´ O ιγ ´· “ Αλλα` λ(γει E ο"κ α ρνε/ται @ δοκιµaτατο Κριλλο δο φσει iνοµα´ζειν· Sτ(ρα γα`ρ % τοT Λ γου, κα Sτ(ρα % τC Gµψχου κα Qννου σαρκ . Σµφηµι κα γ`.”181 “Κα E οZ Gν Χαλκηδ νι συνελθ ντε , αo µ9ν συνοµολογε/ κα Νεστ ριο %µ/ν Gκ τν Κυρλλου φωνν παρατθενται, δηλαδ* τ5 φσει εhναι δο κα διαφ ρου τ*ν ο"σαν, θε τητα´ τε κα α νθρωπ τητα.”182 Το α"το Gκ τν κατα` το α"το Ιωα´ννου Γραµµατικο το Καισαρ(ω , λ γου γ ´, κεφαλαου ιζ ´· “Τ*ν διαφορα`ν δεξα´µενοι, δο τα` φσει Gν α"τU νοοµεν, τ*ν µ9ν κτιστ*ν, τ*ν δ9 αPκτιστον.”183 Το α"το, κεφαλαου θ ´ · “Τ5 δο φσει λ(γειν, ε1τουν iνοµα´ζειν, κοιν5ν %µ/ν κα ΝεστορW µ(χρι το γινaσκειν τ*ν διαφορα`ν το Θεο Λ γου κα τC σαρκ .”184 180 181 183 184
Not otherwise attested. Severus, Against the Grammarian iii, , CSCO xciv, . Ibid. iii, , . Cited in part at above. Ibid. iii, , . Cited also at – above.
182
Ibid. .
Listen once more to the man who says that ‘the majority of the fathers . . . used the expression “in two” of Christ “in a blameless way” ’, and who says he indicts the Council, not for saying ‘in two’, but for not saying ‘out of two’, and so on and so forth. I have no idea how he, like someone who forgets himself when he talks in his sleep, can say again in his own writings: ‘Though I am occupied night and day with the books of the fathers, never to the present day have I been able to find any of the fathers who honours two natures in Christ in the way that those assembled at Chalcedon honoured them, proclaiming Him in two natures.’ If the seriousness of the subject into which we’re inquiring didn’t compel an attitude of reverence in the reader, wouldn’t the fact that [Severus] so completely turns the case against himself induce unrestrained laughter? (Whether he does so out of absentmindedness, or inexperience, or God-induced madness, I couldn’t say.) As the Lord is my witness, it wasn’t our intention to reproach a man of like nature to ourselves with ignorance, or to publicize to others the unsoundness of other people’s statements. Still, since legal proceedings against him were set in motion, but he, hotly contesting these proceedings, was not at all eager to be judged by a council of the whole church, [preferring] rather to be deposed from the throne of the Antiochene church by imperial and clerical votes, it’s necessary to demonstrate what kind of man he is, lest the immature be carried away unthinkingly by his teachings as a result of certain people’s remarkable and entirely factional prejudice in his favour. This is the sort of man who’s on view also in his other, secondary writings, and who’s consistent, so to speak, only in knowing his own inconsistency! Severus, from Against the Grammarian iii, or : ‘But you say that the most-esteemed Cyril does not refuse to name two natures, one that belongs to the Word, and another belonging to flesh endowed with a soul and a mind. I agree completely.’ ‘Likewise those who came together at Chalcedon commend what even Nestorius confesses along with us from Cyril’s sayings, that is, evidently enough, that there are two natures different in substance, divinity, and humanity.’ The same, from his work against the same John the Grammarian of Caesarea, iii, : ‘Since we accept the difference, we understand two natures in Him, one created, the other uncreated.’ The same, from chapter : ‘To speak of—that is, to name—two natures is something we and Nestorius have in common so far as recognizing the difference between God the Word and the flesh goes.’
Το α"το Gκ τC πρ5 Σ λωνα GπιστολC , v % α ρχF “ ˜ Ηλθεν ε) τ*ν Gµ*ν µετρι τητα”· “Τα` Gξ kν @ ΕµµανουFλ, +φ(στηκε185 κα µετα` τ*ν lνωσιν, κα ο" τ(τραπται· +φ(στηκε δ9 Gν τH Sνaσει κα Gν µιD +ποστα´σει θεωροµενα, κα ο"κ Gν µονα´δι κατ )δαν +π στασιν, lκαστον )διοσυστα´τω θεωροµενον.”186 Το α"το Gκ τν πρ5 τ5ν Γραµµατικ5ν λ γου β ´ κεφαλαιου πρaτου· “Κα τν Gξ kν % lνωσι µεν ντων α µειaτων κα α ναλλοιaτων, Gν συνθ(σει δ9 +φεστaτων, κα ο"κ Gν µονα´σιν )διοσυστα´τοι ”.187 ΙδοT τ τε α µεωτον κατα` ποσ5ν κα α ναλλοωτον κατα` ποι5ν λ(γειν φυσικ5ν συνωθε/ται. Κα µετα´ τινα· “Κα E τα` Gξ kν εu @ Χριστ5 Gν τH συνθ(σει τελεω κα α µειaτω +φ(στηκεν.”188 Το α"το ΣεβFρου [r] Gκ τC πρ5 Σ(ργιον τ5ν Γραµµατικ5ν δευτ(ρα GπιστολC · “Κα καταπ(πληγµαι λαν π κα σνθεσιν iνοµα´ζει τ*ν σα´ρκωσιν, Qστιν Nπου κα πα´λιν λ(γει ‘µια˜ γεγενηµ(νη καθα´παξ ο"σα O ποι τητο ’. P Αρα γα`ρ ο?τοι· “Τ5 γα`ρ α διαιρ(τω προστεθ(ν, δοκε/ µ9ν παρ %µ/ν iρθC εhναι δ ξη σηµαντικ ν, α"το δ9 ο"χ οRτω νοοσι. Τ5 γα`ρ α διαρετον παρ α"το/ κατα` τα` Νεστορου κενοφωνα , καθ lτερον λαµβα´νεται τρ πον· φησ γα`ρ Nτι τH )σοτιµK, τH ταυτοβουλK, τH α"θεντK, α διαρετ Gστι [v] το Λ γου @ Gν κατκησεν αPνθρωπο , nστε ο"χ απλ τα` λ(ξει λ(γουσιν, α λλα` µετα´ τινο κακουργα .”207 ΙδοT οIν σκοπε/τε ε"γνωµ νω Nτι τ*ν µ9ν φων*ν οhδεν iρθC δ ξη , τ5 δ9 κακοργω Qχον ν ηµα, α ποβα´λλεται, Nπερ Gξ α ρχC κα lω τ(λου ποιε/ν κα +µα˜ κα %µε/ δυσωποµεν. P Εστιν οIν τ*ν α"τ*ν α σεβ ε)πε/ν τινα` φωνFν, α λλα` κα τ*ν Sτ(ραν φων*ν τ*ν 203 206 207
204 Ps. : LXX Eph. : , modified Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter , ACO i, , , . Ibid. .
205
Eph. :
If the father recognizes nature and hypostasis as being absolutely and without distinction the same thing in the Incarnation, all of the theologians who divide the sayings as of two natures have been implicated in the anathema applied to those who apportion sayings to two hypostases! That’s why you mustn’t adduce things said in the improper sense against things that are said in the proper sense. Rather, on the basis of the fitting and harmonious and more universal understanding confessed by all, what we and you must aim at, with all the evidence we adduce, is the truth. This is their first objection: ‘Nestorius’, they say, ‘used the expression “two natures in Christ”, which you people also use.’ Well, we say he also used many scriptural expressions, but then these aren’t to be cited by us either, if you see what I mean. Moreover, Arians were the first, along with Apollinarians and other heretics, to use ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’. Is a person, just because of them, to keep silent about this expression too? Certainly not! Rather, all wickedness will stop its mouth, but we, on the other hand, shall speak boldly, as we ought to speak, as God’s confidence-infused herald puts it, for the word of truth defeats falsehood when it’s shouted from the housetops, not when it’s concealed, and itself knows how to glorify those who speak it; it doesn’t acquire glory from those who do the speaking. But enough of that. Let’s go on to see what kind of doctrines these patristic doctrines are, the ones these people say clearly speak of one nature in the Lord, and completely rule out two natures. Saint Cyril, from the Second Letter to Succensus: ‘To say that two natures exist indivisibly after the union is to oppose those who say there is one incarnate nature of the Word.’ But when he says this against Nestorians, my friends, he adds after a bit: ‘Though the added word “indivisibly” seems, in our use of it, to signify a correct opinion, that is not the way they understand it. The word “indivisible” is taken in a different sense when they use it, one that accords with the empty babblings of Nestorius. He says it is by equality of honour, sameness of will, and [equality of] authority that the man in whom the Word dwelt is undivided from Him. That means they do not use these phrases in a straightforward way, but with a kind of mischievous intent.’ See? It’s with good reason that you notice that, while he recognizes the expression as enunciating correct opinion, he rejects the mischievous way of understanding it—just what we’ve been urging both you and us to do from start to finish. It’s possible to use this same particular expression in an impious way, but it’s also possible, in the way of Arius, to conceive of the other expression (the one that says ‘one
λ(γουσαν “µαν φσιν το Θεο Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νην” Qστι κατα` P Αρειον, E ο" πα´ντY α τρ(πτου φσεω Jντο το ΥZο, νοε/ν, κα κατα` Απολινα´ριον, E α"το το Λ γου α ντ νο ψυχικο γενοµ(νου, τH GµψυχωθεσY α λ γW σαρκ, λογζεσθαι, κα κατα` Ε"τυχ(α, E α"το το Λ γου ε) σα´ρκα µεταποιηθ(ντο , Gκδ(χεσθαι. Εα`ν οIν208 µ* τα` νοFµατα α νακρνωµεν τν @µολογοντων, κα τατην κα κενην ο"κ αPλλω προσι(µεθα τ*ν φωνFν. Τοτο γα`ρ @ πατ*ρ φησ , Nτι, E κακουργοντα περ τ*ν Qννοιαν τC Sνaσεω τν φσεων, µ* α ποδ(χεσθαι τοT αZρετικοT δε/, καXν ε]ηχοι εhεν αZ φωνα· ο" γα`ρ τ*ν καθ +π στασιν 〈lνωσιν〉 λ(γουσι τν φσεων, α λλα` κατα` σχ(σιν α διαρετον. Εν πολλα/ γα`ρ χρηστολογαι 209 οhδε τ*ν α πα´την κα @ α π στολο γινοµ(νην. 6 Οτι δ9 τοτο οRτω νοε/ κα Gν τH SξC Oν παρα´γουσι χρFσει, σαφ9 Qσται. Το α"το Κυρλλου Gκ τν ε) τ*ν πρ5 Εβραου δευτ(ρου τ µου· “ Αποδιϊστα´ντε γα`ρ α λλFλων τα` δο φσει , κα α να` µ(ρο %µ/ν Sκατ(ραν α συναφC θατ(ραν δεικνοντε , Gν µ νοι προσaποι φασ γεν(σθαι τ*ν lνωσιν, κα E Qν γε ψιλH συναιν(σει κα ταυτοβουλK κα θεληµα´των ;οπα/ , κατ Gκε/ν που τα´χα τ5 Gν τα/ Πρα´ξεσι τν αγων α ποστ λων γεγραµµ(νον, το δ9 πλFθου τν πιστευσα´ντων, eν % καρδα κα % ψυχ* µα.210 Εκα´στου γα`ρ τν πεπιστευκ των κατα´ γε τ5ν τC )δα +ποστα´σεω λ γον διεσχοινισµ(νου τν αPλλων, Nσον vκεν ε) ταυτοβουλαν κα τ*ν Sν τητα τC πστεω , ψυχ* πα´ντων εhναι µα λ(γεται κα καρδα. ˆ Αρα οIν κατα` τοτον κα α"το τ5ν τρ πον, τν προσaπων τ*ν lνωσιν @µολογε/ν Gγνaκασιν.”211 ΙδοT διασαφε/ GκδFλω τ Gστιν p µ(µφεται δ γµα τν δ9 κα lνωσιν α διαρετον λεγ ντων Gπ δο φσεων. Κα µετα` βραχ(α· “Κα ο" δFπου φαµ9ν Gν τU α νθρωπνW σaµατι τ*ν το Θεο Λ γου περιγεγρα´φθαι φσιν· αPποσον γα`ρ τ5 θε/ον.”212 Εhτα Gπα´γει, Nτι· “ P Οψετα τι Gν ΧριστU τ5 α νθρaπινον τελεω Qχον, κατα´ γε τ5ν τC )δα φσεω λ γον, @µοω τ9 τ(λειον τ5ν Gκ Θεο φντα Λ γον, πλ*ν lνα τ5ν Gξ α µφο/ν @µολογFσει Χριστ5ν κα ΥZ5ν, ο" προσaπων Sνaσει µ νον συντιθε τ*ν ο)κονοµαν, συλλ(γων δ9 µα˜λλον ε) qν τα` φσει α πορρFτω γε κα +π9ρ λ γον, E α"τ5 Qγνω @ Θε . Κα ο" δFπου φαµ9ν α να´χυσιν nσπ(ρ τινα συµβCναι περ τα` φσει , E µεταστCναι τ*ν το Λ γου φσιν [r] ε) τ*ν το α νθρaπου τυχ ν, α λλ ο"δ9 αI τ*ν α νθρωπνην ε) τ*ν το Λ γου, νοουµ(νη δ9 208 211
209 οIν] supra lin. MS Rom. : Cyril of Alexandria, On Hebrews ii, PG lxxiv, –.
210
Acts : 212 Ibid. .
incarnate nature of God the Word’) as belonging to the Son who doesn’t have an altogether immutable nature, and, in the way of Apollinarius, to take it as belonging to the Word Himself who took the place of a psychic mind for the animate but irrational flesh, and, following Eutyches, to accept it as belonging to the Word Himself changed into flesh. If we’re not to inquire into the intentions of the people who make confessions, we have no other basis on which to accept the former or the latter expression. What the father’s saying is this: the heretics ought not to be accepted, being people who falsify what’s understood by the union of natures, even if the expressions they use sound good, for they don’t speak of the union of natures by hypostasis, but of a union that’s undivided in terms of relationship. The apostle, too, recognizes the deceit that lurks in lots of flattering words. It will become clear that Cyril takes the same approach to this matter in the next text they trot out. The same Cyril, from On Hebrews ii: ‘When they separate the two natures from each other, and point each of them individually out to us in turn, they’re saying that the union took place in persons only, and thus [has its reality] in mere agreement, identity of inclination, and harmony of wills, the kind of union found in that passage, probably somewhere in the Acts of the Holy Apostles, that goes the heart and the soul of the company of those who believed were one. Though each of those who had come to believe was separate from the others by reason of his own hypostasis, the soul and heart of all are said to be one in so far as each tends towards identity of inclination and oneness of faith. In this way, then, even these people have learned to confess the union of persons.’ Notice: he makes it quite clear just what opinion on the part of those who speak of an undivided union in two natures it is that he censures. After a bit he goes on: ‘We certainly are not saying the nature of the Word of God is contained in the human body, for the divine is without quantity!’ Then he adds: ‘Anyone will observe the human existing completely in Christ by reason of its own nature, and likewise the complete Word sprung from God. He will, moreover, confess the one Christ and Son out of both, not putting the Incarnation together just by a union of persons, but rather bringing the natures together into one in a way that is ineffable and beyond reason, as God Himself understood. We certainly do not speak of a confusion, as if the Word’s nature changed into the man’s nature in the same way as some things
µα˜λλον κα +παρχοση Sκατ(ρα Gν τU τC )δα φσεω NρW, πεπρα´χθαι φαµ9ν τ*ν lνωσιν.”213 Κα µετ iλγα· “Ε) τι οIν αPρα λ(γοι µ νων προσaπων τ*ν lνωσιν, α ποδιϊστα` @λοτρ πω α λλFλων τα` φσει , Qξω τC ε"θεα φ(ρεται τρβου.”214 Τοτων τ α γνοFσει τ*ν Qννοιαν, κα µαν φσιν λ(γειν ο)Fσεται τ5ν πατ(ρα Gπ Χριστο, ο"χ δ9 qν πρ σωπον µα˜λλον, %νωµ(νων α"το τν φσεων, ο"χ απλ α διαιρ(τω α λλα` καθ +π στασιν α"το α"τFν; Κυρλλου Gκ τC πρ5 Σοκενσον GπιστολC · “ 6 Ωστε τα` δο µηκ(τι εhναι δο, δι α µφο/ν δ9 τ5 qν α ποτελε/σθαι ζUον”.215 〈Ε〉) οIν τοτ5 φησιν, Nτι αZ φσει ο"κ ε)σ λοιπ5ν φσει , Qδει ε)πε/ν nστε τα´ ποτ9 δο, τατα µ* εhναι κα νν δο· O nστε τ5 qν τ5 νν µηκ(τι εhναι E κα πρaην δο. Ε) δ9 Qστι216 κα νν δο τα` δο, δι α µφο/ν τ9 κα ο"κ Gξ α µφο/ν απλ τ5 qν @ρα˜ται, δCλον E κατ αPλλο κα αPλλο· E µ9ν γα`ρ φσει , δο, E δ9 σνθετ ν τε τοι νδε ζUον, Nπερ κα ;ητ Qφη, lν Gστι. Προσεκτ(ον δ9 E κα “δι α µφο/ν ζUον α ποτελε/σθαι” λ(γων, Sκατ(ραν φσιν τU Sν τοτW ΧριστU ζω*ν συνεισα´γειν φησν, α λλα` τ*ν µ(ν, τ*ν φυσικ*ν α νθρaπW, τ*ν δ(, τ*ν φυσικ*ν ΘεU ζωFν, E qν εhνα τι θεανδρικ ζν πρ σωπον τ δε· κα γα´ρ Gσθων κα πνων,217 διFρκει κα η]ξανε218 καθ %µα˜ κα eν κα α"τα´ρκη κα παντ(λειο θεϊκ @ α"τ5 εu Χριστ5 @ Κριο %µν. “ Αλλ α6παν qν ζον κα µα φσι ” φασν· “ε) οIν qν ζUον, κα µα φσι @ Χριστ .” Αλλ ε) α ποδεικτικ α παντDν βολεσθε, µ* α γνοε/τε τα` κοιν δεδοµ(να πα˜σι το/ α ποδεικτικο/ κα διαλεκτικο/ · τν γα`ρ α ντιστρ φω α λλFλοι κατηγορουµ(νων, τοτων α να´γκη θατ(ρου δοθ(ντο , κα τ5 lτερον συνεπα´γεσθαι, τν δ9 ο"κ α ντιστρεφ ντων, ο" δCτα. Ε) µ9ν οIν κα πα˜σα φσι ζUον, nσπερ οIν κα πα˜ν ζUον φσι , καλ Gλ(γετε, Gπε ζUον τ5
213 214 215 216 217 218
Ibid. –. Ibid. . Cyril of Alexandria, Letter , ACO i, , , . Qστι] supra. lin. MS Matt. : ; Luke : Luke :
come together in terms of their natures, but neither again do we say that the human nature changed into that of the Word. What we do say, rather, is that union was achieved even though each nature is understood, and exists, in the definition of its own nature.’ And after a bit: ‘If anyone speaks of the union of individual persons, therefore, separating the natures completely from each other, he is turned aside from the straight path.’ Who’s going to ignore the intent of these statements, and suppose that the father speaks of one nature in Christ, and not rather of one person, since His two natures are united, not only indivisibly, but by His hypostasis itself ? Of Cyril, from the Letter to Succensus: ‘so that the two things may no longer be two, but rather the one living thing may be completed through both of them’. If what he’s saying is that the natures are no longer natures, then what he should have said is that the natures that once were two aren’t two anymore, or that the one thing that now exists is no longer, as it formerly was, two. If, however, the two things continue to be two, and it’s simply a matter of the one entity being perceived through both of them and not out of both of them, it’s clear that there are two by virtue of there being one reality over against another, for just as the natures are two, so too this kind of compound living thing is one entity—and that is exactly what Cyril was saying. You should pay attention to the fact that the man who says ‘a living thing is completed through both of them’, says each living nature comes together with this one Christ, but one is the nature natural to a man, the other the nature natural to God. That’s why this person is one entity living theandrically, for the same one Christ, our Lord, lived and grew like us, eating and drinking, yet He was both selfsufficient and, in divine terms, complete. ‘But every one living thing is also one nature’, they say. ‘If Christ is one living thing, then, He is also one nature.’ If you want to prove your case against us with logic, though, you’d better not show your ignorance of what’s universally granted by everyone trained in logic and dialectic: when things are signified in ways that are interchangeable with each other, then when one of them is granted, the other inevitably follows, but when it’s a case of things that aren’t interchangeable, it’s quite a different story. If, then, every nature is a living thing, just as every living thing is a nature, you were right to say that, since the composite entity [that
σνθετον, κα φσιν α ποτελε/σθαι. Ε) δ9 Qστιν @ λθο φσι , ο" µ*ν δια´ τ δε κα ζUον, ο"κ α ναγκα/ον ε1 τι ζUον lν Gστι, δια` τ δε απλ κα φσιν µαν εhναι. Κα αPλλω γα´ρ. Ε) δι τι qν ζU ν Gστιν @ Χριστ , κα µα φσι Gστ, κα δι τι Gκ δο φσεaν Gστι, κα δο ζUα Qσται, N φησι Νεστ ριο α σεβν µ νο . Ε) δ9 λ(γοιτε, Nτι “Κα Gκ δο ζων,219 E α π5 κοινC τC θε τητο κα τC α νθρωπ τητο , τν διαφ ρων φυσικν ε)δν, φαµεν α"τ ν”, αPρα´ γε κα qν ζUον οIν, E κοιν ν τι κα E εhδο lτερον, παρα` τ*ν θε τητα κα α νθρωπ τητα λ(γετε α"τ ν. Κα π φησ ν ο?τ τε @ πατ*ρ κα οZ λοιπο, “τ5 Χριστ5 Jνοµα µFτε ο"σα Nρον, µFτε φσεω Jνοµα εhναι, µFτε Nρου δναµιν Qχειν, µFτε εhδο φσεω σηµανειν”, < τι [v ] τοιοτον;220 ΖUον αPρα τ5 E +φεστ` πρ σωπ ν Gστιν lν. Αλλ ε1ποιτε 1σω , Nτι nσπερ ζωC τC α ϊδου κα τC προσκαρου µετ(χων qν ζUον Gστ ν, οRτω κα φσεω προσκαρου κα τC α ϊδου µετασχaν, µα φσι Gστν. Αλλ Qστιν ε]δηλο @ παραλογισµ . Αντι γα`ρ το µετ(χοντο , τ5 µετεχ µενον Qφητε τ5 δετερον. Ε) µ9ν γα`ρ τ5 µετ(χον Sκατ(ρα ζωC , ζω* eν κα ο" ζUον, ε1τουν τ5 µετ(χον τν ζWν πρ σωπον, καλ ε1ρητο. Ε) δ9 τ5 Gν δο ζωα/ θεωροµενον, ζUον Gστ, κα τ5 δο ο"σιν µετειληφ , ο"σιωµ(νον Gστ τ· ο" µ*ν % ο"σα, ε1τουν φσι , α πρ σωπο . Τ δ( Gστι τ5 ο"σιωµ(νον κα τ5 ζUον, O τ5 πρ σωπον κυρω , τ τε κατα` διαφ ρου φσει κα ζωα` +φεστa ; 6 Ωστε ζUον µ9ν qν iρθ φαµ(ν, φσιν δ9 µαν ο"δαµ , nσπερ ο"δ9 ζω*ν Gπ το συνθ(του προσaπου Χριστο. Κυρλλου Gκ τC πρ5 Ακα´κιον GπιστολC · “ Ορµεν Nτι δο φσει συνCλθον α λλFλαι καθ lνωσιν α διασπα´στω , α συγχτω , κα α τρ(πτω · % γα`ρ σα`ρξ, σα´ρξ Gστι κα ο" θε τη , ε) κα γ(γονε Θεο σα´ρξ· @µοω δ9 κα @ Λ γο , Θε Gστι κα ο" σα´ρξ, ε) κα )δαν GποιFσατο τ*ν σα´ρκα ο)κονοµικ . 6 Οταν οIν Gννοµεν τοτο, ο"δ9ν α δικοµεν τ*ν ε) Sν τητα συνδροµFν, Gκ δο φσεων γεγενCσθαι λ(γοντε · µετα` µ(ντοι τ*ν lνωσιν ο" διαιροµεν τα` φσει α π α λλFλων, ο"δ9 ε) δο τ(µνοµεν υZοT τ5ν lνα κα α µ(ριστον, α λλ lνα φαµ9ν ΥZ5ν, κα E οZ πατ(ρε ε)ρFκασιν µαν
219
p. corr. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia, ACO i, , , apparently cited (badly) from memory. The text is cited correctly in Aporiae at . 220
is Christ] is a living thing, it constitutes a nature. Yet if stone’s a nature, but it’s certainly not on that account a living thing, then there’s no necessity that, if some living thing is one entity, it on that account alone be one nature too. There are other considerations. If Christ is one nature because He’s one living thing, then He’ll be two living things because He’s out of two natures—and that’s something only the impious Nestorius says! If, however, you say ‘We say He’s also out of two living things, as from the different natural forms of universal divinity and humanity’, then you’re saying He’s also one living thing as being some different universal form from divinity and humanity! And how does it happen that Cyril, along with all the other fathers, says that ‘the name “Christ” is neither the definition of a substance nor the name of a nature, nor does it have the meaning of a definition, nor does it signify the form of nature’—or something of the sort? The person subsisting in this way is, then, one living thing. You may say, by the same token, that, just as He who shares in both eternal and transitory life is one living thing, so also He who shared in a transitory and an eternal nature is one nature. The falsity of your reasoning is patent, though: you substituted the second thing, the thing shared in, for the thing that does the sharing in. If what shared in each life was life, and not a living thing, that is, the person that shares in living things, what you said was correct. If, however, what’s understood in two lives, and participated in two substances, is a living thing, it’s something invested with substance. Certainly there exists no substance, i.e. nature, that’s without a person. What is the thing invested with substance, the living thing, except the person in the strict sense, that which subsists in respect of various natures and lives? That’s why we’re right when we speak of one living entity as regards the compound person of Christ, but absolutely not of one nature or life. Cyril, from the Letter to Acacius: ‘We observe that two natures came together in a union inseparably, indivisibly, and immutably, for flesh is flesh, and not divinity, even though it became God’s flesh. Likewise, the Word is God and not flesh, even though He made the flesh His own by His Incarnation. Whenever we think in this way, we are not doing any injustice to the coming together into unity when we say it came to be out of two natures. We certainly do not divide the natures from each other after the union, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two Sons! Rather, we speak of one Son and—as the fathers have put it—of
φσιν το Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νην. Ο"κον Nσον µ9ν vκεν ε) Qννοιαν κα ε) µ νον τ5 @ρDν το/ τC ψυχC Jµµασι, τνα τρ πον @ Μονογεν* Gνηνθρaπησε, δο τα` φσει φαµ(ν.”221 Αλλ ε1πωµεν κα πρ5 τα´δε, Nτι α ρκε/ %µ/ν α"τ5 Sαυτ5ν διασαφν· “Ο" γα`ρ διαιροµεν”, Qφη, κα ο"χ “Sνοµεν”, κα “τα` φσει ”, ο" µ*ν “τ*ν φσιν” E ο?τοι λ(γουσιν, ο"δ9 τεµν µενον τ5ν lνα ΥZ ν, ο" µ*ν τ*ν µαν φσιν, Qφη, “το/ δ9 τC ψυχC Jµµασιν”, οu κα διαφ(ρει αPνθρωπο κτFνου , το Gν το/ το σaµατο Jµµασι µ νον βλ(ποντο . ∆ο αPρα κα φησιν εhναι @ πατ*ρ τα` φσει το Λ γου σεσαρκωµ(νου, α ληθ . Το α"το Gκ τC α"τC GπιστολC · “∆εξaµεθα πρ5 παρα´δειγµα τ*ν καθ %µα α"τοT σνθεσιν, καθ :ν Gσµ9ν αPνθρωποι· συντιθ(µεθα γα`ρ Gκ ψυχC κα σaµατο , κα @ρµεν δο φσει , Sτ(ραν µ9ν το σaµατο , Sτ(ραν δ9 τC ψυχC , α λλ Gξ α µφο/ν καθ lνωσιν αPνθρωπον. Κα ο"χ Nτι Gκ δο φσεων συντ(θειται @ αPνθρωπο , δο τ5ν lνα νοµιστ(ον, α λλ lνα τ5ν α"τ5ν κατα` σνθεσιν, E Qφην, τ*ν Gκ σaµατο κα ψυχC .”222 ΙδοT πα´λιν σαφ , µ* δο α νθρaπου τ5ν lνα νοµζειν, λ(γει· ο"χ, µ* δο φσει τ*ν µαν φσιν λογζεσθαι, Qφη, Nπου γε το α νθρaπου ο"δ9 κατα` πα´ντα GλFφθη τ5 παρα´δειγµα. “ Αλλ Gν τU δευτ(ρW πρ5 Σοκενσον +ποµνηστικU ;ητ ”, φασ ν, “@ πατ*ρ Κριλλο ε1ρηκε, τ5 το α νθρaπου λαβaν, Gκ ψυχC κα σaµατο Jντο , παρα´δειγµα· nστε ‘τα` [r ] δο, µηκ(τι εhναι δο.’223” Κα π ο" δCλον, E κα τοτο οRτω λ(γει, Nτι καθ5 γ(γοναν, ο"κ ε)σ δο ο?τοι, α νε/λεν, α λλα` τ5 µ* θατ(ραν µ9ν εhναι τν δο φσεων “προσκυνητ*ν” Gν τU ΥZU, θατ(ραν δ9 “α προσκνητον” Gν α"τU. ∆ια` γα´ρ τοι τ δε κα GπFγαγεν, Nτι Gν µιD κα τH α"τH προσκυνFσει, το Sν5 ΥZο ο"
230 231
Cor. : Actually Apollinarius, To Jovian = Lietzmann, Apollinaris, –.
strated that the assertion, ‘He displayed one nature of Christ to us, only it is an incarnate nature’, is to be taken as either about a Christ capable of being without flesh—which is inconceivable— or about a Christ who takes on flesh beyond this one nature of His. In that case the actual Christ will be out of Word, flesh, and a further nature of flesh. He’ll be understood not only and simply to be two natures, but to be out of the one and simple divine nature, yet also out of two compound natures (i.e. the human ones), and besides that He’ll be said to be out of three natures. It’s no less the case that there are two natures out of that one nature of Christ you hold to, plus the nature added to Christ by the second incarnation of His flesh! But why don’t you give up these distorted views, and consider with right eyes the intention behind what’s said? Notice that Cyril himself makes it clear that he’s saying there continues to be the same one nature of natural sonship for the Son, even though He took on another nature, when he says ‘for the word “one” isn’t truly used for things’—that is, sons, clearly enough—‘that are solitary and simple by nature.’ He’ll teach you, rather, that the one Son of whom he says these things isn’t simple by nature, but twofold. What’s true for the father is exactly what, for our part, we’ve often urged against you: that the person is one, though of several actual natures, and the same Son is one by nature, not that one of the natures is a Son by nature, and the other a Son by grace. When he’s thus clearly shown to be saying what we say, rather than what you say—even though he’s ‘the teacher’ to these people!—then, even though in some passages things are just as you would wish them to be, everything said by the father about the two natures of Christ in other passages contradicts those texts of his. He’s suspected of enduring exactly what no one who speaks in the Spirit of God endures.x The great Athanasius: ‘We confess that He is both Son of God and God in spirit, but Son of Man in flesh. We don’t confess that the one Son is two natures, one that’s to be worshipped, and another that’s not to be worshipped, but one incarnate nature of God the Word, worshipped along with His flesh in one act of worship.’ ‘Observe’, they say, ‘how the father clearly rules out the duality of natures in the one Son.’ But it wasn’t the two natures that he ruled out, my friends, but having one of the two natures that’s ‘to be worshipped’ in the Son, and the other that’s ‘not to be worshipped’ in Him. This is undoubtedly why he went on to say that [this worship] is in one and the same act of worship of the
φσεω λ(γων· E γα`ρ δια` καθολικωτ(ρου τιν5 το Nλου προσaπου, α6µα προσκυνε/σθαι τα` µ(ρη α"το, σοφο, “κατα` τ5 αPσαρκον” “)δαν φσιν” @ Λ γο , Qτι κα “GπιδηµFσα ” Gν σαρκ. Κα π τν +µετ(ρων ο"κ Gπαtοιτε; τ τ9 %µ/ν προσεπερωτσιν +µα˜ α ποκριθFσεσθε; ˆ Αρα γα`ρ κα @ κυριακ5 αPνθρωπο Qχει )δαν φσιν κατα` τ5 σαρκικ ν, ε) κα Gνθ(ω “GπεδFµησεν”, O το Λ γου µ νον σaζεται % φσι % αPσαρκο , δ κησι δ9 eν % φαν(ρωσι τC σαρκ5 το Κυρου; ε) γα`ρ α ληθεK eν, δο φσει Sκατ(ρα τνδε συνα´γουσιν, ε) µαν κοιν*ν +π στασιν συνηγµ(να τ*ν α"το. Αλλ Gπ τοτοι τ φησιν; Ε) δ9 “lν Sκα´τερ ν Gστι κατα` τ*ν σνοδον”, > αPνθρωπε, ε) lν, π Sκα´τερον; ε) δ9 Sκα´τερον, π lν κατα` τ5 α"τ5 Qσται; Ο"κον σαφ( , Nτι qν µ9ν κατα` τ5 πρ σωπον, Sκα´τερον δ9 κατα` τα` φσει Gστν. Ο"χ φησν, α λλα` “κατα` τ*ν α νθρωποειδC σνθεσιν”. Τ οIν, σωζοµ(νη φσεω ψυχC κα σaµατο , 1σµεν κα Sτ(ραν [r] φσιν εhναι τ5ν αPνθρωπον παρα` τα´σδε, O ο"χ; Ε) µ9ν οIν ο"χ, ο"δ9 Gπ το Κυρου σωζοµ(νη θε τητο κα α νθρωπ τητο Qτι, φσι Gστ α"τU % καθολικωτ(ρα µα. Ε) δ9 σωζοµ(νων τοτων, ο) µεθα
248
αPρα] αsρα MS
this man puts it—the body made the divinity alive. Is there any understanding that outdoes this in blasphemy? The tossing about that accompanies impious ideas as a result of falsity’s impotence is something one needs to examine also throughout what comes next. ‘The body is not a nature of itself,’ he says, ‘neither is it life-giving by itself, nor can it be severed’. It follows that the body doesn’t, on the basis of its own definition, have the ability to be severed, just as it doesn’t have the power to give life on the basis of its own definition, or else it has one of these capabilities by the definition of its own nature, but not the other. It received both of these, though, from its union with what is life-giving and indivisible by nature. Otherwise, if there are no distinct realities, and the nature of the body actually revealed its indivisibility in Christ, then—since neither the Word nor the flesh is indivisible—who was it that was circumcised, who was perforated by nails, who was pierced by a spear, unless it was some kind of illusion or phantom? Take note: what my friend has proposed is rife with lack of understanding, for he says: ‘Nor is the Word . . . divided into a distinct nature, a nature He has without flesh’. Then, O wise ones, the Word does have a distinct nature in respect of unfleshly reality when it dwells in flesh. Why don’t you pay attention to your own statements? What answer will you give us if we put this additional question to you: does the dominical man have a distinct nature in respect of the fleshly reality, if He dwelt in it in a divine way, or is only the Word’s unfleshly nature preserved, whereas the manifestation of the Lord’s flesh was an illusion? If it truly was a manifestation, both of these realities imply two natures, two natures united in His one common hypostasis. What answer does he give to these charges? If ‘each thing is one by . . . the coming together’, my good man, if there is ‘one’, how can there be ‘each’? But if there is ‘each’, how is there going to be ‘one’, when these words have the very same referent? It’s therefore clear that there is ‘one’ vis-à-vis person, but there is ‘each’ vis-à-vis natures. That’s not [how he says there’s one], but rather ‘by the human composition’. What then? Though the nature of soul is preserved, and so is that of body, do we recognize that there is also another nature, man, beyond those natures, or don’t we? If not, then there exists for Him the one more inclusive nature, neither divinity nor humanity being preserved in the Lord any longer. If, since these natures are preserved, we recognize that the more common nature of man,
Gπιγεν(σθαι κα τ*ν κοινοτ(ραν το α νθρaπου φσιν, παρα` τατα Sτ(ραν οIσαν, τ αXν ε1η κα % Gπ Χριστο % Gπιγενοµ(νη φσι , : ο]τε θεα ο]τε α νθρωπνη Gστ; Κα τ τ5 φυσικ5ν τοτο εhδο , τ5 +π(ρθεον, ε1πατε· α λλ οRτω µ9ν τα´δε. “ o Εν” δ9 “τU συνθ(τW Jνοµα”, τ5 πο/ον φατ9 “προσαρµ ζεσθαι”; Ε) µ9ν τ5 +ποστατικ ν, α ναντρρητο @ λ γο · ε) δ9 〈τ5〉 φυσικ ν, τ α"τU % +ποκειµ(νη φσι , κα δια` τοδε προσαγορευοµ(νη; Ε) µ9ν γα`ρ Sτ(ρα παρα´ τε τ*ν θε τητα κα 〈τ*ν〉 α νθρωπ τητα, ποα αXν ε1η; Ε) δ9 % τC θε τητο , ο" το συνθ(του )δω % iνοµασα E συνθ(του· κα πρ5 γα`ρ τC συνθ(σεω eν 0 τε φσι κα τ5 Jνοµα. Ε) δ9 〈%〉 τC α νθρωπ τητο , κα οRτω ο" το συνθ(του % προσηγορα· κα πρ5 γα`ρ τC Sνaσεω τCσδε eν 0 τε φσι κα % κλCσι αRτη Eµολογηµ(νω πα˜σιν. Αλλ mνα πα´ντα παρδωµεν, π qν Jνοµα φυσικ5ν δε/ν ε)δ(ναι κατα` το συνθ(του λ(γοντε Nλου, δο τ9 κα Gναντα α"το καταφα´σκετε, κτιστ ν τε κα αPκτιστον α"τ5 λ(γοντε , κα τ γε λαν παραδοξ τερον, Nτι “α π5 µ9ν τC θε τητο ”, µ νον “τ5 αPκτιστον” κα “α παθ9 ” φα´σκοντε εhναι α"το, “α π5 δ9 το σaµατο τ5 κτιστ5ν” κα “παθητ ν”, “ο]τε µερικ α κοειν”, “ο]τε λ(γειν” τα´δε Gπ Χριστο ε)ρFκατε, α λλ Gκ το Nλου Χριστο. ΣυγχωρFσαντε δ9 +µ/ν E αXν κα βολεσθε παλιλλογε/ν, Gπαγα´γοιµεν το/ παρ +µν α ναγκαω , E ε1περ @µοτµω περ Sκατ(ρου τν Gν ΧριστU τα` Gναντα δοξα´ζετε, κα τ5 Nλον κατα` φσιν 1στε τοι νδε Χριστο, p αPν Gκ θατ(ρα τν Gν α"τU φσεων λ(γεται κατα` τC Nλη +ποστα´σεω α"το, αPρα γε nσπερ α ληθ παθητ* κα κτιστ* % σα`ρξ α"το, οRτω γε κα % θε τη α"το, κα nσπερ α παθ* κα αPκτιστο % θε τη α"το, οRτω γε κα % σα´ρξ αo πρ5 τU βλασφFµW, Qχει κα τ5 α δνατον σαφ · ο" γα`ρ Qστιν Gν ταυτU κα κατα` τ5 α"τ5 κα Eσατω πα´ντY τα` Gναντα πaποτ( τινο καταφα´σκεσθαι.
being a different nature beyond these, has come into existence, what would the nature be that has come into existence in Christ— the nature that’s neither divine nor human? Tell us, what is this natural form, this form beyond God? So much for that! What kind of ‘one name’, though, are you saying ‘is attached to what is compounded’? If it’s the kind of name that pertains to hypostasis, the statement is unexceptionable. But if it’s the kind of name that pertains to nature, what’s the nature that underlies it, and on account of which it’s called that kind of name? If it’s a different nature than divinity and humanity, what sort of nature could it be? If it’s the nature of divinity, this isn’t properly the name of the composite qua composite, for it was [divinity’s] nature and name before the composition too. If, on the other hand, it’s the nature of humanity, it’s likewise not the appellation for the compound, for this nature and form of address existed before this union too, as is universally confessed. So that we may take account of everything, though, how is it that you who say it’s necessary to recognize one natural name for the composite whole affirm two opposite names for it, calling it both ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’? What’s even more incredible is the fact that, though you say that only ‘the uncreated’ and ‘the impassible’ about Him are ‘from the divinity’, but ‘the created’ and ‘the passible’ are ‘from the body’, you’ve asserted that you ‘do not hear’, that you ‘do not say’, these things about Christ as applying to a particular part, but on the basis of the whole Christ! We concede that you’d like to go over the whole thing again, but we just have to make the point to your partisans that, if you really think opposite things about each of the realities in Christ, giving them equal honour, and if you recognize the whole of Christ by nature to be of this kind—something that’s surely said about His whole hypostasis on the basis of both of the natures that are in Him—then His divinity is just as truly passible and created as is His flesh, and His flesh is just as impassible and uncreated as His divinity. Such assertions aren’t just rife with blasphemy; they’re also clearly impossible. It’s never yet been possible for opposites to be affirmed of anything in the same sense, in the same respect, and in precisely the same way.
Το α"το Gκ το περ τC Gν ΧριστU Sνaσεω · “ Ωµολ γηται δ9 Gν α"τU τ5 µ9ν εhναι κτιστ5ν Gν Sν τητι το α κτστου, φσεω µια˜ Gξ Sκατ(ρου µ(ρου συνισταµ(νη , µερικ*ν Gν(ργειαν κα το Λ γου συντελ(σαντο ε) τ5 Nλον, µετα` τC θεϊκC τελει τητο , Nπερ Gπ το κοινο α νθρaπου Gκ δο µερν α τελν γνεται, µαν φσιν πληροντων, κα Sν iν µατι δηλουµ(νων.”249 Σαφ9 αPρα E τC φσεω το ο)κεου Nλου, τC µια˜ ο?τοι, Gκ τν κατ α"τCν πεπραγµ(νων ε]λογον, τFν τε Gπανα´ληψιν το Nρου κα τ*ν Gπιδι ρθωσιν κατανοCσαι σαφ(στατα. 6 Ινα δ9 µ* τοιαται δικολογαι α γο[v]ραοι κα %µε/ +µ/ν συνδιασυρaµεθα, κα πρ5 τ δε τοτ φαµεν· “Πρτα µ9ν E ο"κ Gκ πρaτη α νθρaποι πα˜σιν, ο"δ9 το/ θεοφ ροι , % τελεα γνσι ε"θ , α λλ Qστι κα τοT αγου πC µ9ν Gκ µ(ρου τ γινaσκοντα ,286 Rστερον τελεωτ(ρω τ5 α"τ5 Gπιγινaσκειν· αPλλω δ9 ε) µ* τ5 Nλον πρ5 διαβολ*ν µ νον @ρµεν, µα˜λλον αXν Gκ τοδε προσεχ τε κα Gµπερισκ(πτω ψηφισαµ(νη φανε/ται, κα ο"δ9ν κατα` συναρπαγ*ν O παρ ρασιν τC χρεα GκφωνFσασα.” “ Αλλα` κα Sτ(ρωθεν α"τFν” φησιν “διαβλητ(ον. ∆ιοσκ ρW γα`ρ α ντιπαθ Qχουσα Gλ(γχεται τU Gν ΑλεξανδρεK Jντι πα´πK ποτ(, p το/ Νεστοριανο/ α ντ(κειτο αPγαν δ γµασι. Κα γα`ρ τ νδε ο"κ α λ γω Gξ(βαλε το θρ νου, µ νον E GχθρU Νεστορου τοτW µηνσασα, α λλα` τινε α"τν τοινδε συνηγοριν κα κατηγοριν ;ητορικα παραγραφα κα διαβολα, ΤερτλλW τU +π9ρ Ιουδαων λ(γοντι κατα` Παλου πρ5 ΦFλικα πρ(πουσαι.”287 Πρ5 +ποσλησιν γα`ρ τν κουφοτ(ρων κριτν ε)σ ν Gξευρηµ(να τα` τοια´δε. ∆ι σκορον γα´ρ, E Ε"τυχ(α µ9ν τ5ν κακ φρονα δεξα´µενον µετα` τ*ν καθαρεσιν α"το, κα α ναθεµατσαντα τ5ν Nσιον Φλαβιαν5ν τ5ν δικαω α"τ5ν καθα´ραντα, προετρ(ψατο Gλθε/ν ε) α να´κρισιν τν κατ α"το % σνοδο , διαφ ρω κα α λληνα´λλω ψευδC τε προφασιζ µενον Gπ τH α ναµονH α"το τH πρ5 τ*ν κλCσιν φωραθ(ντα· Rστερον δ9 κα α ν(δην τ(λεον ο"κ ε1ξαντα παραγεν(σθαι, τηνικατα Gξ(βαλον. “Π οIν” φησ ν “α"τ* % σνοδο Qφη ∆ι σκορον µ* δια` δ γµα καθελε/ν, α λλ Nτι κληθε ο"χ +πFκουσε;” Κα γα`ρ Jντω , > ο?τοι, GκλFθη µ9ν δια` τ*ν το κακο δ γµατο Ε"τυχο +ποψαν, µ* +πακοσα δ9 κα GκδοT ε) βα´σανον τα` καθ Sαυτ5ν προϋποπ(πτωκε κα Sτ(ρW GγκλFµατι, τU τC παρακοC , +π9ρ ο? κα τC κατα` τοT καν να µερικC τ(τυχεν α µοιβC Gκβεβληµ(νο · πλ*ν ο"κ Gν τUδε το τC κακοδοξα
286
Cor. :
287
Acts : –
But, my friends, the reasonable thing is to understand the recension of the definition to be very clearly also its correction! For our part, we’d rather not participate in your depreciation of things with this kind of courtroom rhetoric. We do, nonetheless, have this to say by way of response to your charge: ‘In the first place, we say that perfect understanding doesn’t happen right away for all men, not even for god-bearing men; rather, it’s possible even for the saints, when they’ve somehow known something in part, to get to know the same thing more perfectly later on. If we don’t view the whole with an eye only to slander, the council appears in this light to have voted with care and circumspection, and to have uttered nothing conducive to fraud or to negligence of the task at hand.’ ‘But the council is to be faulted on another score as well’, my friend says. ‘When it behaved adversely towards Dioscorus, it was opposed by him, he being the Pope of Alexandria at the time, and a man much opposed to Nestorian teachings. It wasn’t for no reason that it deposed this man from his throne, since it was angry at him solely for being an enemy of Nestorius, but some of the rhetorical mis-statements and accusations of such speeches pro and contra are of the kind that would suit Tertullus, the man who spoke to Felix on behalf of the Jews against Paul.’ Such things are inventions aimed at suborning those not wellequipped to judge. The council summoned Dioscorus as having received the thoughtless Eutyches after the latter’s deposition, and as having anathematized the holy Flavian (who justly deposed Eutyches), and it summoned him to appear for an examination of the allegations against him when he was detected making false excuses in many different ways for his delaying action against the summons. It was later, when he quite freely refused to appear, that they deposed him. ‘How is it, then,’ my friend says, ‘that the same council said it did not condemn Dioscorus on doctrinal grounds, but because he did not comply when he was summoned?’ Well, my friends, Dioscorus really was summoned on suspicion of harbouring the evil doctrine of Eutyches, but when he wouldn’t comply and submit the case against himself to trial, he fell under another accusation, that of disobedience, and it’s in connection with the charge of disobedience and the particular penalty prescribed by the canons for it that he happened to be deposed—except he wasn’t released from the charge of heresy in
gλευθ(ρωται. Ο" γα`ρ ε1 τι Gπ ZεροσυλK Gγκαλο/το, προτραπε δ9 ε) τ*ν περ τοδε δκην κα φυγοδικFσα , εhτα ε"λ γω φυγοδικαν κατακριθε Nδε, δια` τC κουφοτ(ρα κατακρσεω τCσδε, περ τC Zεροσυλα τ*ν νικσαν α πεν(γκοιτο· το"ναντον γα`ρ κα Gπιβεβαιο/ τ*ν προτ(ραν +ποψαν τC κατ α"το προσαγγελα , % γενοµ(νη α"τU Qγκλησι τC βασα´νου τC +ποθ(σεω . Ε) δ9 λ(γοιτε Nτι ο" τ5 συνειδ5 α"τU α1τιον eν τC φυγοδικα , α λλ % τν δικαστν α ντιπα´θεια, τατην αPρα Gγγρα´φω κα νοµµω κα κανονικ [r] δι ε"λ γου παραιτFσεω Qδει α"τ5ν συστCσαι, ο" µ*ν δια` τC τν Gλ(γχων α ποδρα´σεω · τοτο γα`ρ α πορK παντελε/ τC περ το GγκλFµατο α πολογα γνεται. Τνα γα`ρ αXν κα Qφη λ γου παραγεν µενο , @ βουλ µενο τν +περαλγοντων τα νδρ5 gθοποιετω.288 6 Οτι µ9ν γα`ρ Gδ(ξατο Ε"τυχ(α, φανερ ν· Nτι δ9 ο" καλ Gδ(ξατο αPνδρα µαν εhναι µ νην τ*ν το Χριστο φσιν δοξα´ζοντα, θεαν τε απλ κα ο"δ9ν Qχουσαν α νθρaπινον, τ αXν α πελογFσατο; Υµε/ οIν οZ ∆ιοσκορ/ται GπινοFσατε. “Να ” φησι “µετανοFσαντα γα`ρ α"τ5ν Gπ τοτοι Gδ(ξατο, κα α ληθ iρθοδοξοντα Rστερον.” ΟZ γον τοT @πωσον +ποπτευθ(ντα π ποτε ΝεστορW συµφρονε/ν τν Gν τH συν δW, µ* µεταστCναι τC δεισιδαιµονα πειθ µενοι, π νν τ νδε ο"χ απλ µ νον +ποπτευ µενον, α λλα` κα Gγγρα´φω @µολογFσαντα τ*ν α σ(βειαν α"το, κα καθαιρεθ(ντα Gπ τUδε, E µ* α ποστα´ντα τC κακοδοξα , µεταµαθε/ν τ*ν ε"σ(βειαν GπληροφορFθητε, ο]τε παρουσK συν δου, O µαρτρων τινν α ξιοπστων, ο]τε Gν GκκλησK, ο]τε Gγγρα´φW @µολογK τιν τC πρaην α"τ5ν α ποστCναι κακοδοξα @µολογFσαντα; P Ετι µ*ν ε) Jντω τατα Qχει, κα E µετανοFσαντα Gδ(ξατο α"τ ν, δCλον Nτι Jντω α σεβοντα πρaην α"τ5ν Gφ οu Qσχατον πρ5 ∆ι σκορον µετεν ησε, καθCρεν @ @σιaτατο Φλαβιαν . Π οIν δεξα´µενο τ ν δε @µολογοντα τ*ν πα´λαι α"το κακοδοξαν, τ5ν καθαιρεθ(ντα δικαω πρ5 τC µετανοα , Φλαβιαν5ν τ5ν δικαω α"τ5ν καθFραντα Ε"τυχ*, τοτ φησι κα α"τ5 πρα˜ξαι ε) α"τ ν; X Η οIν ο"κ α ληθ µετανοFσαντα τοτον Gδ(ξατο, O ο"κ α δκω καθελ ντα α"τ5ν Φλαβιαν5ν, Gκε/νον α"τ5 α δκω α ντικαθε/λεν.
288
gθοποιε/το
this. If someone’s charged with sacrilege, but avoids trial even though he’s urged [to submit to] trial for it, and then this man’s condemned on solid grounds for avoiding trial, he doesn’t deflect the first-order judgement for sacrilege on account of this lighter judgement. On the contrary, the accusation that emerged against him of contesting the proposed trial would strengthen the earlier suspicion contained in the information laid against him. If you say it wasn’t this realization that caused him to avoid trial, but the antipathy of the judges, what he needed to do was to give written, legal, and canonical proof of this antipathy in the form of a reasoned refusal, not by running away from cross-examination! That completely undermines his defence against the accusation. Let anyone who feels pain for the man note the character of the assertions he made when he was present. That he received Eutyches is clear, but what excuse did he offer for incorrectly receiving a man who supposed that there was only one nature of Christ, a nature that was just divine and had nothing human about it? That’s what you, the followers of Dioscorus, need to come up with! ‘Certainly’, my friend says, ‘he received [Eutyches] when he repented for these things, and when he later held correct and true opinions.’ How does it happen that you—who are persuaded that, among those at the council, none of those ever suspected in any way of agreeing with Nestorius ever abandoned their superstition—now have become utterly convinced that this man (who isn’t just suspected of impiety, but even confessed his impiety in writing, and was deposed for it as being someone who didn’t abandon his error) learned piety instead? This though he didn’t confess that he abandoned his former error either in the presence of a council or of trustworthy witnesses, or in church, or in any written confession! Furthermore, even if it really is the case that [Dioscorus] received him as being someone who repented, it’s clear that the most religious Flavian deposed him when he earlier was impious about things of which he in the end repented to Dioscorus. How is it that Dioscorus, though he received the one who confessed his former error (a man justly deposed before his repentance), says he himself did exactly the same thing to Flavian that Flavian did to Eutyches, that is, justly deposed him? Either he received this man though he didn’t truly repent, or he himself unjustly counterdeposed the very Flavian who not unjustly deposed Eutyches!
“ Αλλα` να ” φησι “Νεστοριαν* πρ ληψι eν περ Φλαβιανο το Κωνσταντινουπ λεω Gπισκ που, Qνθεν κα Rποπτα τα` ε) Ε"τυχC γεν µενα +π α"το.” Κα τ Gντυγχα´νων τH Gκθ(σει τC πστεω Φλαβιανο, τUδε συµφFσειεν, > ο?τοι; Φησ γα´ρ· “Κηρσσοµεν τ5ν Κριον %µν Ιησον Χριστ5ν πρ5 α)aνων Gκ Θεο Πατρ5 α να´ρχω γεννηθ(ντα κατα` τ*ν θε τητα, Gπ Gσχα´των δ9 τν %µερν τ5ν α"τ5ν δι %µα˜ κα δια` τ*ν %µετ(ραν σωτηραν Gκ Μαρα τεχθ(ντα κατα` τ*ν α νθρωπ τητα, Θε5ν τ(λειον κα αPνθρωπον τ(λειον τ5ν α"τ5ν Gν προσλFψει ψυχC κα σaµατο , @µοοσιον τU Πατρ κατα` τ*ν θε τητα κα @µοοσιον τH µητρ τ5ν α"τ5ν κατα` τ*ν α νθρωπ τητα. Κα γα`ρ Gκ δο φσεων τ5ν α"τ5ν Χριστ5ν µετα` τ*ν σα´ρκωσιν τ*ν Gκ τC αγα παρθ(νου κα Gνανθρaπησιν, Gν µιD +ποστα´σει κα Gν Sν προσaπW lνα Χριστ ν, lνα ΥZ5ν, lνα Κριον @µολογοµεν, κα µαν δ9 το Θεο Λ γου φσιν σεσαρκωµ(νην µ(ντοι κα GνανθρωπFσασαν λ(γειν ο"κ α ρνοµεθα, [v] δια` τ5 Gξ α µφο/ν lνα κα τ5ν α"τ5ν εhναι Κριον %µν Ιησον τ5ν Χριστ ν. ΤοT δ9 δο υZοT , O δο +ποστα´σει , O δο πρ σωπα καταγγ(λλοντα , α λλ ο"χ lνα κα τ5ν α"τ5ν Κριον Ιησον Χριστ5ν τ5ν ΥZ5ν το Θεο το ζντο κηρσσοντα α ναθεµατζοµεν, κα α λλοτρου τC Gκκλησα εhναι κρνοµεν, κα πρτον πα´ντων Νεστ ριον α ναθεµατζοµεν τ5ν δυσσεβC, κα τοT τα` α"το φρονοντα O λ(γοντα · κα Gκπ(σουσιν οZ τοιοτοι τC υZοθεσα τC Gπηγγελµ(νη το/ iρθ φρονοσιν.”289 ΟRτω µ9ν ο?το @µολογε/ @ +π5 ∆ιοσκ ρου, E φησν, α6τε Νεστοριανζων καθαιρεθε . Εhτα δ9 απλ κα τC κατα` ∆ιοσκ ρου πα´ση µ(µψεω σιγηθεση %µ/ν, πα˜σα µ9ν % τν Zερν κα αγων λειτουργν σνοδο α ντιπαθ Qδοξεν +µ/ν Gκβαλε/ν παρ ντα κα κεκληµ(νον διαφ ρω κα προδιαβεβληµ(νον Gπ προλFψει Ε"τυχο lνα τινα` µ νον α"τ5ν ∆ι σκορον, ΣεβCρο δ9 @ γεν µενο 〈Gπσκοπο 〉 Gν ΑντιοχεK, ο]τε Gν χρ νοι O τ ποι α"το τ*ν Gν Χαλκηδ νι σνοδον παροσαν, ο]τε προτραπε/σαν +π α"το, ο]τε δεξαµ(νην Νεστ ριον, α λλα` κα Gκβα´λλουσαν α"τ5ν κα τα` α"το Gγγρα´φω , δεχοµ(νην δ9 τ*ν κατ α"το iρθοδοξαν, α λλ ο"χ κα τ*ν α ντικειµ(νην α"τU κακοδοξαν Ε"τυχο , ο"κ Gκβα´λλεσθαι απλ καταψηφισα´µενο α λλα` κα α ναθ(µατι κατακρνειν α"τοT α6παντα α6µα +φ9ν @ εu µ νο τολµFσα , π
289
Flavian of Constantinople, Letter to Theodosius, ACO ii, , , .
‘But there certainly was a Nestorian prejudice to Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople,’ my friend says, ‘and as a result everything that took place against Eutyches under him is suspect.’ Yet who that happened upon Flavian’s exposition of faith would agree with this, my friends? Here’s what he says: ‘We proclaim our Lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of God the Father before all ages vis-à-vis His divinity, but in latter days the same born of Mary vis-à-vis his humanity for us and for our salvation; perfect God, and the same perfect man by the acquisition of a soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father in respect of divinity, and the same consubstantial with His mother in respect of His humanity. For we confess the same Christ out of two natures after taking flesh from the holy Virgin and becoming man, one Christ, one Son, one Lord in one hypostasis and in one person, and do not refuse to speak of one nature—incarnate, to be sure, and become man—of the Word of God, on account of our Lord Jesus Christ’s being one and the same out of both. But those who proclaim two sons, or two hypostases, or two persons, but not one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, we anathematize, and judge them to be strangers to the Church. We anathematize first of all the impious Nestorius, along with those who think or speak as he does. Such people will fall away from the adoption as sons announced for those who think aright.’ That’s the kind of confession this man makes, the man deposed by Dioscorus, as my friend says, for being a ‘Nestorianizer’! So then: while we just kept silent about the whole case against Dioscorus, you took it that the entire council of priests and sacred ministers banished a single individual, Dioscorus himself, who was present, who was called in various ways, and who had incurred suspicion of prejudice in favour of Eutyches. Yet when Severus, newly become Bishop of Antioch, didn’t just pronounce that the council should be rejected—though it took place at Chalcedon neither in his day nor within his territory, wasn’t summoned by him, and didn’t receive Nestorius, but rather rejected him and his teachings in writing, and received instead orthodox teaching against him, though it didn’t receive Eutyches’ error either that was opposed to him—but also dared (one man, alone!) to place all of them at once under anathema by a single pronouncement, how is it that, in your eyes, he didn’t seem in these matters to be in the
ο"κ Qδοξεν +µ/ν Nλω Gµπαθ Qχειν O προπετ πρ5 τα´δε; Κατοι α π α)νο κα ν το/ Gξωτ(ροι κα ν το/ %µετ(ροι πα´ντων τν @µοειδν τα` το κοινο κρσει , µα˜λλον α ποδεκτ(α 1σµεν κατα´ τινο τν )δικν, O τα` Gξ )δικο τιν5 κατα` το περ α"τ5 κοινο· κα +µ/ν αPρα τ5 Nλον τC GκκλησιαστικC Zεραρχα µ(ρου )δου Sν5 α ξιοπιστ τερον Qδει νοµζεσθαι, ε) ε"θεα κρνετε υZο τν α νθρaπων.290 Τνα γα`ρ κα αPλλον ε1δετε τολµFσαντα´ ποτε σνοδον α ναθεµατζειν, κα ο" το"ναντον πα´ντα τοT αZρεσια´ρχα +π5 συν δων α ναθεµατισθ(ντα ; Κα γα`ρ Jντω θαυµαστ ν, Nπω οZ το Θεο δολοι τ5ν τC τα´ξεω λ γον Gφλαξαν α ε· ο" γα`ρ Gστιν α καταστασα @ Θε ·291 Συν δων γον διαφ ρων δεισιδαιµονησασν, κατFργηνται µ9ν συν δοι κυριωτ(ραι τα` +π α"τν, ο" µFν τι τν θεοφ ρων µ νο )δικ κατακρνειν, α λλ ο"δ9 σνοδο α ναθεµατσαι σνοδον Gτ λµησε. Π σW γε µα˜λλον α ναθεµατζειν κοιν ν τι θεολα´τρου πανηγρεω , @ εu Gνθ(σµω α πετ λµησεν; Αλλ Gν τοτοι πα˜σιν ο"κ Gκπτσαντε Nµω α π5 τC ψυχC τ5ν Gγχριφθ(ντα α"το/ γλοιaδη τC α λ γου προλFψεω καθ %µν ;πον, [r] τ φασ πα´λιν; “ Ω αZ πλεου τν χειροτονιν +µ/ν δια` χρυσου δ σεω κα λFψεω ε)σν, κα Qχουσι τ5 Gπα´ρατον κατα` τ*ν το µα´γου Σµωνο πρ θεσιν.292 Π οIν +µ/ν συγκοινωνητ(ον, ε) µ* αPρα κατα´ρα εhναι κληρον µου περιφρονητ(ον %µ/ν;”, φασν. Α s ρα γον Gπε τιν9 τν )ατρν Gφωρα´θησαν µοιχο κα κλ(πται, δια` τ δε τ*ν )ατρεαν λοιδορητ(ον Gπ τοτοι κα φευκτ(ον; Πλ*ν τα´δε %µ/ν ε), E οZ λεγ µενοι αγνο τU Sαυτν α νεπιλFπτW βW πεποιθ τε , προα´γουσιν, E Ναυατιανο/ α ποκρινοµεθα λοιπ ν, κα ο"χ E µιξοφυσται . Ε) δ9 ο"χ , α λλ απλ E φιλοχρσοι µα˜λλον O φιλοχρστοι διαµ(µφονται, κα τU µ9ν δ γµατι συµφωνε/ν %µ/ν, τοτW δ9 µ νW σκανδαλζεσθαι συγκοινωνε/ν µεθ %µν φασν, κα οRτω αPρα φιλοφρ νω α"τοT Qδει Gξοµολογουµ(νοι %µ/ν τα` αµαρτα ,293 %µν +περεχεσθαι· ε]χεσθαι γα`ρ +π9ρ α λλFλων %µα˜ Nπω )αθµεν,294 Gντετα´λµεθα, κα ο" φαρισσαϊκ βδελττεσθαι τοT @µοφυε/ κα @µοπστου .295 Πλ*ν Gν ΚυρW θαρροµεν, Nτι Gγκαταλ(λοιπεν %µ/ν Κριο σπ(ρµα, κα ο"κ GγενFθηµεν E Σ δοµα, ο"δ E Γ µορρα Eµοιaθηµεν.296 290 293 296
Ps. : LXX Mark : Isa. :
291 294
Cor. : Jas. :
292 295
Acts : Cf. Luke :
grip of emotion and rashness? Furthermore, it’s been a matter of common knowledge time out of mind for the whole human race, foreigners and natives alike, that the judgements of the state against any of its individual members are to be accepted over those of any individual entity against the state on the matter at issue. Even by you, therefore, the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy should have been considered more trustworthy than one individual part of it, if you judge justly, O sons of men. What other person have you ever observed daring to anathematize a council, and not the opposite—all the heresiarchs being anathematized by councils? Really, it’s amazing how God’s servants always preserved respect for order, for He is not the God of confusion. If various councils held false beliefs, their actions were nullified by more authoritative councils; none of the theologians dared on his own to pass individual sentence, but neither did council dare to anathematize council. How much more legitimate was it for the one man to venture to anathematize an agreed position of a God-worshipping assembly? Seeing that, in all these matters, they don’t likewise spit out of their souls the sticky filth that’s washed over them in the form of their irrational prejudice against us, why do they say by way of contradiction: ‘The majority of the votes on your side resulted from the giving and receiving of money, and they fall under the curse pronounced against Simon Magus. How, then, are we supposed to have fellowship with you,’ they say, ‘unless it is a matter of no concern to us to be inheritors of a curse?’ Does that mean that, just because certain doctors have been caught in adultery and theft, one must therefore revile and avoid the medical treatment they practised? Moreover, if it’s as people said to be pure in the confidence of their own blameless life that they are bringing up these points against us, well, we’re responding from now on as to Novatianists, not as to nature-mixers! If that’s not the case, but they’re blaming us simply for being lovers of gold rather than of Christ, and say that, while they agree with us on doctrine, they take offence at coming together with us on this score alone, then the right thing for them to do, in a spirit of friendship towards us when we confessed our sins, was to pray for us in a spirit of friendship, for we’re commanded to pray for one another so that we may be healed, not pharisaically to despise men of the same nature and faith as themselves. Moreover, we trust in the Lord, because the Lord left descendants for us, and we did not become like Sodom, nor were we made like Gomorrah.
Τ δ* οIν αsρα, ε) δεξοµεν πλεστου τν Zεραρχοντων ε) %µα˜ ο" νοσφιζοµ(νου α π5 σπαρτου lω σφαιρωτCρο +ποδFµατο ,297 Gπ τUδε λ(λυται α"τν @ ζCλο , κα κατFργηται τ5 σκα´νδαλον κα προσδρα´µοιεν τH α ληθεK, O ο"δ9 τ δε πα´λιν Zκαν5ν %µ/ν Qσται ε) α ποθεραπεαν α"τν; s Αρα δ οIν ε1ποιµεν Qτι· “ΟZ καθ +µα˜ Zερε/ οZ Gνδνοντε ε) τα` ο)κα , κα α)χµαλωτεοντε γυναικα´ρια298 α)σχρο κ(ρδου χα´ριν,299 ο" τC ε) τα` γυναικωντιδα κα παρα` π δα τC κλνη τελουµ(νη α"το/ Zερουργα τοT µισθοT α ποβλ(ποντε , κα το/ µηνιαοι κα Gτησοι Gρα´νοι Gπελπζουσι;” ∆(δοικα λ(γειν τα` πλεω, µFπω κα βεβFλοι θριαµβευθµεν, οZ τ*ν µ ρφωσιν Qχοντε τC ε"σεβεα , τ*ν δ9 δναµιν α"τC gρνηµ(νοι·300 πολλα` γα`ρ πταοµεν α6παντε .301 Κα γα`ρ µισθ5 το λουτρο τC χα´ριτο , κα α π5 τιµC Gκ τν λειψα´νων τC θεα δωρεα˜ ε) συµπεφaνηται πC δι +µν, τ lτερον α κουσ µεθα, O Nτι τ5 Jνοµα´ µου δι +µν βλασφηµε/ται Gν το/ Qθνεσιν;302 Αρκ(σει γον Sκα´στW Gκ το )δου iφθαλµο τ*ν δοκ5ν Gξαρειν, κα τ τε τραν τερον τ5 Gν τU iφθαλµU κα´ρφο κατανοε/ν, καθα´ φησιν %µ/ν @ µ νο α ναµα´ρτητο .303 Τοτων δ9 %µ/ν σTν ΘεU προτεθ(ντων ε) κρσιν κα δια´σκεψιν πα˜σιν α νθρaποι , δυσωποµεν Gνaπιον το τC α ληθεα Λ γου,304 το Jντω κριτο παντ5 Qργου κα λ γου κα GννοFµατο %µν,305 α ποθ(σθαι lκαστον Gντευξ µενον, καPν τε τC %µετ(ρα , καPν τε τC α λλοτρα δ ξη , [v] τ*ν E παρ ο)κεων κα πολεµων α κρ ασιν τν ε)ρηµ(νων, κα κρνειν τα` ;ηθ(ντα E παρα´ τινων πα´ντY α γνaστων α"τU τν Gξ Sκατ(ρου µ(ρου , κα E ο] ποτε θατ(ρου λ γου προθεµατισθ(ντο κατα` τ*ν δια´νοιαν α"τU. Κα ε)306 Jντω γυµνU τU κριτηρW Sαυτν χωρ παντ5 προσπαθο κα α ντιπαθο Gπισκοτσµατο α ληθ(στερα κρνωµεν κα ε"λογaτερα κα )σχυρ τερα κα σοφaτερα τα` παρ α"τν, οZ το/σδε το/ Gναντοι %µ/ν προκεµενοι, Jντω τολµµεν λ(γειν, E ε) κα κακ τατα Gκε/νοι φρονο/εν οZ συναπαγ µενοι α"το/ , δια` τ5 δ ξαι τοτοι θεοπρεπ(στερον εhναι δ γµα τ5 κατ α"το , ο" κατακριθFσονται α σ(βειαν Gν %µ(ρK Nτε κρινε/ @ Θε5 τα` κρυπτα`307 τν καρδιν· Gα`ν γα´ρ φησιν P Εµπροσθεν α"το πεσωµεν τα` καρδα %µν, κα % καρδα %µν µ* καταγινaσκY %µν, @ θε5
297 300 303 306
Gen. : Tim. : Matt. : – ε)] O a. corr. MS
298 301 304 307
Tim. : Jas. : Eph. : Rom. :
299 302 305
Titus : Isa. : LXX Cf. Heb. :
What then? If we show you that the majority of those who hold ecclesiastical office over us stole neither a thread nor a sandal-thong, has their zeal slackened over this business? Has their offence been removed, and are they hastening to the truth? Or will this too not suffice us for achieving their restoration? We therefore have something more we’d like to say: Aren’t priests of your party—who make their way into households, and captivate weak women for base gain— keeping a close eye on their wages when the sacrifice is celebrated by them in the women’s quarters, and at the foot of the bed, and aren’t they hoping for monthly and yearly contributions? I’m afraid to say more, lest we’re being led along by godless people, who have the form of piety, but deny its power; for we all make many mistakes! If on your side a fee’s ever been agreed upon for the baptism of grace, or as the price for the remains of the divine gift, what are we going to understand from that except that my name is blasphemed because of you among the nations? It’ll be enough for each person to cast the beam out of his own eye, and then to perceive the speck in someone else’s eye, as He who alone is without sin tells us. All that having been laid out by us, with God’s help, for the judgement and inspection of all, we have an urgent appeal to make before the Word of truth, who’s the real judge of our every action, word, and thought: we urge each person—be he of our persuasion, or be he of the contrary persuasion—who comes upon statements to put aside the tendency to hear them according to whether they’re from friends or foes, and to judge what’s said as though it came from people entirely unknown to him, whatever side they’re on, and as though the other interpretation of its meaning had never been presupposed by him. If we really judged by our own unaided judgement, without any kind of clouding of our judgement by prejudices for or against, that their views are truer, more reasonable, stronger, and wiser, then we who’re pressing these opponents of ours so hard would actually be so bold as to say that, even if the people led astray by them should think wrong things because a doctrine enunciated by our opponents seemed to them to be more worthy of God, they won’t be condemned for heterodoxy on that day when God judges the secrets of our hearts. (If, [Saint John] says, we are to reassure our hearts before Him, and our heart is not to condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows
µεζων Gστ τC καρδα %µν, κα γινaσκει πα´ντα·308 Ε) δ9 @ µ9ν τC α ληθεα Λ γο 309 φαιδρα´ζων Sαυτ5ν Gπιδεκνυσιν %µ/ν, %µε/ δ9 το τε iφθαλµοT καµµοµεν κα το/ {σ βαρ(ω α κοοµεν α"το310 Gθελοκωφοντε , κα α ποστρεφ µεθα α"τ ν, Jντω παντ5 θρFνου α ξου SαυτοT καταστFσοµεν, τ*ν α)σχνην τC µελλοση α λλοτριaσεω κα α ρνFσεω Χριστο, Gνaπιον α γγ(λων311 κα Gξουσιν παντ τε το κρινοµ(νου κ σµου, ο" προϋπιδ µενοι, Nτε ο"δ9ν %µα˜ iνFσει, ο]τε % πρ5 τοT αZρεσια´ρχα προσπα´θεια, ο]τε % γονικ* O φιλικ* O τοπικ* συνFθεια πρ5 τ*ν α σ(βειαν α λτω τινα` καταδεσµεουσα, ο]τε πορισµ5 χρηµα´των, O κ(ρδη τινα` βιωτικα` δυσαποσπα´στου %µα˜ α π5 τC δεισιδαιµονα ποιFσαντα, κα τ5ν µ(γαν πορισµ5ν τ*ν ε"σ(βειαν µετ α"ταρκεα 312 παριδε/ν +ποπεσαντα. Ο" γα`ρ δ* φατριαστικο κρ τοι, κα α γνε α ντιλογικο, κα πρ ληψι διδασκαλικC α ξα , φιλοντα λ(γεσθαι ;αββ παρα` τν α νθρaπων,313 το ο)κτροτα´του Gκενου ταλανισµο κα τν iδυνηροτα´των βασα´νων, κα τC ε) τ5 σκ το τ5 Gξaτερον314 παραδ σεω Gξαιρονται τοσδε, ο τ5 φ τC α ληθεα gρνFσαντο, κα η"δ κησαν Gν τU σκ τει το ψεδου . Ε"α´ρεστον γα`ρ ΘεU τ5 παντ5 προτιθ(ναι τ*ν α λFθειαν, κα µα´λιστα Gν το/ περ Θεο α"το τC α ληθεα . ∆ια` γον τ δε κα µ νον, Αβραα`µ315 Χαλδαων τ*ν α σ(βειαν α ποπτσα , µετα` πατρ5 κα ο1κου κα συγγενεα κα φλων κα χaρα κα λοιπν, προσεχaρησε τH ε"σεβεK,316 ΘεU τ9 Gπ τοτW πρaτW κα µ νW gγα´πηται κα πεφλακται κα δεδ ξασται [r] κα πεπλFθυνται· Παλο δ9 @ α π στολο , α6τινα eν α"τU κ(ρδη, πα´ντα σκβαλα %γFσατο, δι ο"δ9ν lτερον, 〈α λλ 〉 mνα Χριστ5ν κερδανH·317 κα οZ λοιπο πα´ντε οZ Gξ ΕλλFνων κα Σαµαρειτν κα Ιουδαων πιστο α6γιοι Eσατω Qσχον. Ο γα`ρ µ* α ρνοµενο πατ(ρα κα µητ(ρα κα α δελφοT κα α δελφα` κα τ(κνα κα α γροT κα ο)κα , Qτι δ9 κα τ*ν Sαυτο ψυχ*ν lνεκεν Gµο,318 ο"κ Qστι µου αPξιο 319 φησ ν @ Κριο . Κα µF τι διαλογιζ(σθω λ(γων· “ Αλλ ο"χ % κατα` τα` αZρ(σει δι(νεξι πρ5 τ*ν iρθοδοξαν ο" τ σον δι(στηκεν, E % Χαλδαων κα Εβραων κα ΕλλFνων α σ(βεια τC α ληθο πστεω , mνα @µοω α"το/ α λλοτριωθεη α π5 Χριστο, @ περ µ(ρο τ τC iρθC πστεω µ νον α πειθν τU λ γW.” Ο γα`ρ σµικρ ν τι µ ριον @πωσον ε"σεβεα το λ γου παρορν δια` προσπα´θειαν αPλογ ν τινο Sτ(ρου κα συνFθειαν, δCλ Gστιν E κα Nσον ε"σεβε/ν δοκε/, ο"δ9 τοτο Gξ αZρ(σεω ο)κεα , α λλ α π5 308 310 311 314 317
309 John : – Eph. : Isa. : LXX; Matt. : ; Acts : 312 Luke : Tim. : 315 Matt. : , : , : sic spir. MS 318 Phil. : – Matt. : , :
313 316 319
Matt. : – Gen. : – Matt. :
everything.) If, on the other hand, the Word of truth shows Himself to us with shining brightness, but we close our eyes, and hear Him with heavy ears, deliberately shutting our ears, and we turn away from Him, we really make ourselves worthy of every lament for not foreseeing the shame of impending estrangement from, and denial by Christ before angels and powers of the whole world when the time comes to be judged. On that day nothing will profit you: not passionate attachment to heresiarchs; not the ties of ancestry, family, or place which tie some people indissolubly to heterodoxy; and not the means of gain or certain life-benefits that make it hard to tear us away from superstition, and that gradually persuade us to overlook the great gain, orthodoxy with contentment. Certainly factional cheers, and disputatious contests, and a preoccupation with one’s status as a teacher don’t free those who love to be called ‘rabbi’ by men from that most pitiable misery, those most painful tortures, and being cast into outer darkness, seeing that they’re people who denied the light of truth, and delighted in the darkness of the lie. What’s well-pleasing to God is to put the truth before everything else, above all in matters that concern the truth about God Himself. It was for this reason, and for this reason alone, that Abraham—despising the impiety of the Chaldeans, and with it his father, home, family, friends, lands, and everything else—put his faith in piety. That’s the reason, the first and only reason, why he was loved, protected, magnified, and increased by God. Paul the Apostle considered whatever was gain for him to be dung, for no other reason than so that he might gain Christ. The rest of the faithful saints from among the Greeks, Samaritans, and Jews were the same. He who does not deny father, and mother, brothers and sisters, children, fields, homes, and even his own soul for my sake, is not worthy of me, says the Lord. No one’s to put up an argument, saying ‘The disagreement between heresies and orthodoxy doesn’t set them as far apart from each other as the impiety of Chaldeans, Jews, and pagans sets them apart from the true faith, so that the person who won’t listen to reason over just some part of the true faith is alienated from Christ to the same degree as they are.’ It’s clear that the person who in any way whatsoever neglects any little bit of the understanding of piety because of an irrational and habitual preference for something else, in so far as he also appears to be orthodox, has this appearance, not on the basis of personal choice, but as a result of what’s been handed down to him from
συµβεβηκ των γον(ων O τ πων, O φλων παραδ σεω Qχει, E , ε1περ κα Μανιχαων Qτυχεν O ΕλλFνων O Εβραων υZ5 εhναι, O φλο O σνοικο , πολλU µα˜λλον αXν α πειθεστ(ρω δι(κειτο πρ5 τ*ν α λFθειαν· ε1περ γα`ρ iλγον α φεστ` ο" προστρ(χει κα καθ(λκεται τH α ληθεK, πλε/ον διεστηκ` , µα˜λλον αXν α σπ νδω εhχε πρ5 α"τ*ν. “ Αλλα`” φησ “κατ Gµαυτ5ν Gγ` νοµζων κρειττ νω φρονε/ν, Qχοµαι τC GµC δ ξη α µεταθ(τω .” Αλλα` κα περ kν φησ ν @ α π στολο Ιουδαων, E ΘεU µ* α ρεσκ ντων, κα τ5ν Κριον σταυρωσα´ντων, κα τοT α ποστ λου διωξα´ντων, κα πα˜σιν α νθρaποι α πειθοντων,320 Nµω τοτο κα κενοι µαρτυρε/· φησ γα´ρ πη πα´λιν· Μαρτυρ γα`ρ α"το/ Nτι ζCλον Θεο Qχουσιν, α λλ ο" κατ Gπγνωσιν.321 P Αρα οIν ο"χ απλ ζηλον, α λλα` κα Gν Gπιγνaσει το ζηλουµ(νου δ γµατο , δε/· κα γα`ρ κα πα˜σα αPλογο κα αPνοµο παρα´δοσι , κα Gθνν κα αZρ(σεων, ο1ετα τι καλ5ν ποιε/ν, nσπερ οIν κα α νθρωποθυσαι οZ Σκθαι θεοσεβοντε . ∆(ον αPρα µ* α µελε/ν, Nση δναµι , κα GρευνDν τ*ν α λFθειαν, κα πα´ντα δοκιµα´ζοντα , τ5 καλ5ν φρ νηµα κατ(χειν.322 Οm γε ο"δ9 α ργριον λαµβα´νοµεν, O Zµα´τιον {νοµεθα, ε) µ* δοκιµασαι κα πυρaσεσι κα παρακ ναι κα Gπιδεξεσιν ε) Sτ(ρου πλει νω α"τ5 βασανσοµεν, π οIν ε]λογοι >µεν α τηµελ τ*ν θεαν δ ξαν προσδεχ µενοι; Τ5 γα`ρ Gν τοτοι α φρ ντιστον, E ο"κ α ξι λογ ν τι ο)οµ(νου %µα˜ τ*ν τC πστεω Χριστο χα´ριν κα α λFθειαν, διαβα´λλει, [v] δι v %µ/ν τα` πρ5 ζω*ν πα´ντα τα` θε/α κα µ(γιστα Gπαγγ(λµατα δεδaρηται, E ε1ρηται, κα % πρ5 τ*ν θεαν φσιν απλ κοινωνα.323 6 Οσον οIν Gστ ν α γαθ5ν % α κραιφνεστα´τη ε"σ(βεια, κα Nσον κακ5ν % α σ(βεια—τC γα`ρ ε) πα˜σαν αµαρταν Gγκαταλεψεω +π5 Θεο α)τα %µ/ν αRτη Gστ µ νη—δηλο/ @ λ(γων· Κα καθ` ο"κ Gδοκµασαν τ5ν Θε5ν Qχειν Gν Gπιγνaσει, παρ(δωκεν α"τοT @ Θε5 ε) α δ κιµον νον, ποιε/ν τα` µ* καθFκοντα,324 α6τινα SξC κατηρθµησε. Κα τα´δε µ9ν οIν µαρτυρε/ τH α σεβεK, περ δ9 τC ε"σεβεα φησ πρ5 Τιµ θεον· Γµναζε σεαυτ5ν πρ5 ε"σ(βειαν· % γα`ρ ε"σ(βεια πρ5 πα´ντα Gστ ν {φ(λιµο , Gπαγγελαν Qχουσα ζωC , τC τε νν κα τC µελλοση .325
320 323
Thess. : Pet. : –
321 324
Rom. : Rom. :
322 325
Thess. : Tim. : –
the parents, locations, or friends he happened to have—just as, if he happened to be the son, friend, or fellow-countryman of Manichaeans, Greeks, or Jews, he’d be even more disposed to be disobedient towards the truth. If he didn’t hasten and feel drawn towards the truth when he’d let it go a bit, then when he’d turned completely away he was surely all the more implacably opposed to it. ‘I, on the other hand,’ my friend says, ‘stick to my opinion without changing, since I am in the habit of thinking more highly of myself.’ The apostle, who says of the Jews that they displease God, crucified the Lord, drove out the apostles, and disobey all men, likewise gives the following testimony against them, for he somewhere goes on to say: I bear witness against them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to full knowledge. It’s necessary, then, not just to be zealous, but to be zealous in full knowledge of the doctrine on behalf of which one is zealous, for every irrational and lawless tradition, both of nations and of heresies, supposes it’s doing something good. Such is the case even with the Scythians, who show their piety towards God by human sacrifices! What’s needed, however great one’s power, is not to be careless, and to seek the truth, and testing all things, to have the right mind. We don’t accept a silver coin or buy a piece of cloth, unless we fully test it by assays and tests by fire, by paring it, and by proofs in the presence of others. How sensible, then, would we be if we were careless about accepting divine doctrine? The apostle opposes the great thoughtlessness in these matters involved in our thinking that the grace and truth of Christ’s faith aren’t anything worthy of note—through which all the divine things that pertain to life and the very great promises have been given to us, as is said, and, quite simply, participation in the divine nature. How great a good the purest orthodoxy is, and how great an evil impiety is—for the latter is the sole reason why we’re abandoned by God to every sin—is something he makes clear when he says: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to doing what is not right, which things he went on to enumerate. These things, then, give evidence of impiety, but he talks about piety to Timothy: Train yourself in piety, for piety is profitable in every way, as it holds the promise of life, life in the present, and life that is to come.
Αλλα` τ κα lτερον τοτων τιν9 τC πρ5 τ*ν α λFθειαν α νυποταξα ποιονται δικαωµα. Φασι γα`ρ Nτι “Π ο" θεα´ρεστο % κατ α"τοT δ ξα, Qνθα κα τν ζaντων Gν σαρκ τιν9 α"το/ @µ δοξοι κα τν προκοιµηθ(ντων, wφθησαν )αµα´των κα σηµεων θε θεν Qχειν τ5 χα´ρισµα; ∆Cλον γα`ρ E Gξ α κοC κα διδαχC iρθC πστεω θεο, αZ θε/αι δυνα´µει Gνεργονται.” Πρ5 p λεκτ(ον, E ο"κ α ρκε/ τ δε πρ5 α σφαλC πληροφοραν τU δοκιµωτα´τW τν θεων δογµα´των κριτH. Πρτον µ9ν γα`ρ σπανιaτερον εRρηται τοτο Gν α"το/ , κα ο"κ Gκ µια˜ χελιδ νο τ5 Qαρ κριτ(ον· αPλλω γον κα Αρειανο ποτε, κα µ(χρι νν Gν Λογγιβα´ρδοι , κα Νεστοριανο παρα` Π(ρσαι ποιοσι τοια´δε θαµατα· α λλ ο"κ ε) µαρτυραν απλ τC κατ α"τοT πρ5 %µα˜ αZρ(σεω , α λλα` τC τν Χριστιανν πστεω , οZα´ τι Gστιν %326 δναµι πρ5 τοT πα´ντY α πστου , Gπιδεικνυµ(νου το πνεµατο . P Ετι µFν Gστιν @ρDν πολλα´κι θαυµα´των χαρσµατα Qν τισιν iρθοδ ξοι τ9 κα Sτεροδ ξοι @µοω , ο" δι ε"σ(βειαν µ νον—e γα`ρ αXν eν Gν το/ Gναντοι λ γοι κα α ντιφατικο/ % α λFθεια;— α λλα` δια` φυσικ*ν απλ τητα κα α τυφαν, µα˜λλ ν τ9 νηπι τητα ψυχC , O δειν τητα, πρατητα´ τε κα συµπα´θειαν, κα απλ τC τοια˜σδε χα´ριτο )δικωτ(ραν Gπιτηδει τητα τοδ( τινο παρα` τοT λοιποT τν @µοπστων α"τU. Ε) γα`ρ Jντω πα˜σιν α ε τε δια` τ*ν δ ξαν µ νον πρ σεστιν % τν θαυµατουργιν δναµι , Qδει πα´ντα πα´ντοτε @µοω τοT @µοδ ξου θαυµατουργε/ν· κα µ*ν πολλα´κι τν διδασκα´λων τC πστεω ο" θαυµατουργοντων, οZ µαθητευθ(ντε +π α"τν, Gνεργοσι τα` σηµε/α. Ο" γα`ρ πα´ντα Nσα Gνεργε/ τ5 qν κα τ5 α"τ5 πνεµα,327 Sν κα τU α"τU χαρζεται· µ9ν γα`ρ δδοται λ γο σοφα , δ9 λ γο γνaσεω , Sτ(ρW δ9 χαρσµατα )αµα´των, Sτ(ρW [r] GνεργFµατα δυνα´µεων, αPλλW δ9 πστι κατα` τ5 α"τ5 πνεµα.328 Κα γα`ρ θαυµαστ5ν, π @ λαλν γλaσσαι , ο" πα´ντω ο"δ9 τ5 Gγγτατον τUδε χα´ρισµα λαβaν, κα διερµηνεει·329 P Αρα οIν Gστι κα τινα` ο"δ9 λ γον σοφα α κραιφνC, ο"δ9 λ γον γνaσεω , ο"δ9 πστιν330 +ψηλ*ν ε)ληφ τα , θαυµα´των Qχειν χαρσµατα, κα ο"κ ε]λογον Gκ θατ(ρου θα´τερον τν το πνεµατο χαρισµα´των κατακρνεσθαι.
326 329
%] οZ a. corr. MS Cor. :
327 330
Cor. : Cor. : –
328
Cor. : –
But some people invent a different justification than these for their disobedience to the truth. This is what they say: ‘When certain people who hold the same opinion as they do—some of them living in the flesh, and some who have passed on—have been seen to possess the gift of healings and of signs from God, how could the opinion held among them not be pleasing to God? It’s clear, after all, that divine powers operate on the basis of hearing and teaching God’s correct faith.’ What’s to be said against that argument is the following: to the really reputable judge of divine doctrines, this [working of miracles] is not sufficient grounds for confidence. In the first place, this [phenomenon] is to be found more rarely among our opponents, and ‘one swallow doth not a summer make’.xiii On the contrary, even Arians (found to this day among the Lombards), and Nestorians (found among the Persians) sometimes work just as great miracles, but that doesn’t all on its own have the effect of justifying their choosing against us. Rather, such is the power of Christians’ faith over against those entirely outside the faith when the Spirit’s made manifest. Moreover, it is often possible to observe gifts of miracles among orthodox and heterodox persons alike, not on account of orthodoxy alone—for then, truly, there’s truth in opposite definitions and contradictions!—but on account of the particular individual’s natural simplicity and humility (and even more, innocence of soul), or on account of his gentle and sympathetic disposition and, to put it simply, his greater personal fitness for so great a gift over the others who share his faith. If the capacity for miracle-working really is present in anyone on account of his opinion alone, then everyone who took the same doctrinal stance must always have worked miracles in the same way. To tell the truth, though, teachers of the faith often aren’t miracle-workers; it’s those they’ve taught who perform signs. One and the same Spirit doesn’t give all the miracles He works to one and the same person, for to one is given a word of wisdom, but to another a word of knowledge, to another gifts of healing, to another the working of miracles, to another faith according to the same Spirit. It’s remarkable how the one who speaks in tongues doesn’t receive the most closely related gift to speaking in tongues at all, and interpret tongues. It’s therefore possible for some people who’ve received neither a pure word of wisdom, nor a word of knowledge, nor lofty faith, to have gifts of miracles, and there’s no sound reason for deciding about
Τ5 δ( γε σαφ(στερον ε)πε/ν· ε) µ9ν Gν τοτοι µ νοι eν τα` χαρσµατα τν θαυµα´των, O ε) µα˜λλον %µν Gν α"το/ Sωρα˜το, εhχεν αXν Jντω α"το/ % δ ξα πρ ληψιν ε"σεβεα παρα` τ*ν %µετ(ραν, E το Κυρου τ5ν λ γον α"τν βεβαιοντο µ νων δια` τν Gπακολουθοντων σηµεων331 κατα` τ5 γεγραµµ(νον, nσπερ κα τ5 κFρυγµα τν α ποστ λων πα´λαι συνιστα´νοντο πρ5 α6παντα τα` Qθνη, κα nσπερ τα` Μωϋσ(ο κα Ααρ`ν σηµε/α +π9ρ τα` Ιαννο κα Ιαµβρο πρ5 τοT Α)γυπτου θριαµβεοντο .332 Ε) δ9 Gν %µ/ν κα µεζονα κα πλεονα @ρα˜ται τα` Gκ το πνεµατο θαµατα κατα` πα˜σαν τ*ν ο)κουµ(νην, π Gκ θαυµατουργιν α ξιοπιστ τερον εhναι βολονται τ5 δ γµα; Μ* δ9 τ δε οIν E iνFσιµον α"το/ ε) α πολογαν τινα` τ*ν +π9ρ τC δεισιδαιµονα α"τν προβαλλ(τωσαν. Ε) γα`ρ κα Σκευα˜ σTν το/ υZο/ α"το, Ιουδα/ο yν, Gν iν µατι Χριστο Gπορκζων Gλανει δαµονα ,333 κα ο"κ Gν τUδε απλ το/ µαθητα/ το Κυρου συναριθµε/ται, δCλον, E ο"δ9 ο?τοι Gκ τοδε πρ φασιν Qχουσι περ τC αµαρτα α"τν.334 Πολλο γα´ρ φησιν Gροσ µοι Gν τH %µ(ρK GκενY· Κριε ο" τU σU iν µατι προεφητεσαµεν, κα δαιµ νια Gξεβα´λοµεν, κα δυνα´µει πολλα` GποιFσαµεν; Κα τ τε @µολογFσω α"το/ , Nτι ο"δ(ποτ Qγνων +µα˜ .335 Σαφ9 αPρα, E ο"κ α ρκε/ πρ5 δια´κρισιν τν Gγνωσµ(νων κα α πεγνωσµ(νων ΧριστU θαµατο Gµφα´νεια, πολλα´κι O δια` τ*ν το πεισοµ(νου τ*ν ε"εργεσαν πστιν, iρθοτ(ραν µα˜λλον O τ*ν το Gνεργοντο , γινοµ(νου τοδε, O δια` τ*ν τν θεατν ε) τ*ν πρ5 ε"σ(βειαν απλουστ(ραν πληροφοραν, Gνοτε δ9 κα κατα` πρ νοιαν κοινωφελεστ(ρα χρεα τC κατα` καιρ5ν O τ πον +π5 Θεο κα δια` το οZουδFποτε τν παρ ντων Gπιτελουµ(νου. Εν το/ γον καθ %µα˜ Zστ ρηται χρ νοι κα τ ποι , µ/µο τ τν θεατρικν, κα ο?το Gπ στα´σει κα φ νW Gγκαλοµενο , φυγε/ν τ5ν δικαστ*ν Gν τα/ κατα` τ5 βαρβαρικ5ν λεγ µενον λιµιτ5ν GρFµοι , κα +π5 Σαρακηνν ληϊσθε Χριστιανν, δια` τ5 δοκε/ν α"το/ Gκ τC α ποτριχaσεω µοναχ5 εhναι, κα nσπερ οZ πρ5 α"τοT µοναχο παραβα´λλοντε , Zερουργε/ν δνασθαι το ζωτικο αPρτου τ5 µυστFριον, δια` νευµα´των ε)σεπρα´ττετο σπουδαω +π α"τν, τC θεα θυσα τ*ν λειτουργαν, µ νο α φεθε τν συνδεσµων α)χµαλaτων, Gκτελ(σαι. Κα E λ γW πεθειν α"τοT
331 334
Mark : John :
332 335
Tim. : Matt. : –
333
Acts : –
one of the Spirit’s gifts on the basis of another. Let me make my point more clearly: If gifts of miracles existed solely among these people, or if they were observed to a greater extent among them than among us, then their view really has a prima facie case for its orthodoxy over against ours, since then the Lord has confirmed only their message by the signs that followed, as it is written, just as He also once commended the preaching of the apostles to all nations, and just as He made Moses’ and Aaron’s signs triumph over those of Jannes and Jambres against the Egyptians. If, however, greater and more numerous miracles from the Spirit are to be seen among us throughout the world, how is it that they’d have their doctrine be more trustworthy on the basis of miracles alone? Don’t let them propose this line of argument, then, as being of any advantage to them in the way of offering some kind of defence for their superstition! If Sceva, though a Jew, drove out demons with his sons by adjuring them in the name of Christ, yet isn’t counted among the Lord’s disciples for that alone, it’s clear that our opponents don’t have an excuse for their sin on that basis either. On that day, He says, many shall say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and cast out demons, and perform many wonders?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you.’ It’s clear, then, that the manifestation of a miracle is not sufficient grounds for distinguishing between those who are known, and those who are disowned, by Christ; often the miracle happens through the faith (more correct than the miracleworker’s) of the one about to receive the benefit, or through the onlookers’ faith, to enhance their simple confidence about religion. Sometimes, too, it happens by means of foreknowledge on God’s part of a general need of the moment and the district, and by the agency of whatever person there brought it to pass. In our own timesxiv and places the story is told of a certain actor from a theatre company who, being charged with riot and murder, tried to escape from the judge in the deserts near what is called the barbarian border, and was captured by Christian Arabs. Because he seemed to them to be a monk on account of his shaved head, and to be able, like the monks who consort with them, to perform the mystery of the bread of life, he was earnestly entreated by them with signs to celebrate the liturgy of the divine offering, and was set apart from his fellow prisoners on his own. He found no way to convince them by argument of his own unfitness, and he
+π9ρ τC Sαυτο α νεπιτηδει τητο ο"κ ε"π ρει, κα α ντιτενειν τH προστα´ξει α"τν Gπ [v] πλε/ον ο"κ ε"τ νει, βωµ5ν Gκ φρυγα´νων κατα` τ*ν Qρηµον συστησαµ(νων κα σινδ να Gφαπλωσα´ντων, κα προθ(ντων αPρτον νε πτητον, κα οhνον Gν ξυλοποτηρW κερασα´ντων, παρεστ` Gσφρα´γισε τα` δρα α ναβλ(ψα ε) τ5ν ο"ραν5ν, κα Gδ ξασε τ*ν αγαν Τρια´δα µ νον, κα κλα´σα δι(νειµεν α"το/ . Εhτα µετα` τ δε, E αγιασθ(ντα λοιπ5ν Gν τιµH συστ(λλουσι τ τε ποτFριον κα τ*ν σινδ να, πρ5 τ5 µ* κοινωθCναι λοιπ5ν τα´δε, το βωµο µ νου περιφρονFσαντε · κα αPφνω πρ Gκ το ο"ρανο πλε/στον Gπιπεσ ν, α"τν µ9ν ο"δεν5 0ψατο O Gλπησ( τινα, τν δ9 φρυγα´νων τ5ν βωµ5ν Nλον κατ(φλεξε κα Gξανα´λωσεν, E µ* δ9 τ(φραν α"τν καταλιπε/ν. Κα τοτW iφθ(ντι τU τεραστW οZ βα´ρβαροι πληροφορηθ(ντε ε) τ5ν ZερουργFσαντα, δ µα´ τι παρ α"τν α)τε/ν +π9ρ τC λειτουργα Gξεβαζον· @ δ9 τοT συνληϊσθ(ντα α"τU πα´ντα κα συναφεθCναι τFσατο, κα τοτο Gλα´µβανε, κα πα´ντα gλευθ(ρου τC συµφορα˜ τοT σTν α"τU. s Ην δ9 ο?το τ*ν µ9ν δ ξαν %µ(τερο τU µ νον %µ/ν συνεκκλησια´ζεσθαι ο" µ*ν ε)δ` ο"δ9 Nτι Qστι τ σχεδ5ν Χριστιανν διαφορα´. ΟZ δε Σαρακηνο Gκ τC τν Ιακωβιτν αZρ(σεω ε)ωθ τε κοινωνε/ν, ο κα α"το τ*ν µαν φσιν Gπ το Κυρου πρεσβεουσι, κα ο?τοι πρτοι το/ Σαρακηνο/ συµπερια´γεσθαι κατα` τ*ν Qρηµον κα λειτουργε/ν α"το/ GπετFδευσαν E Gππαν· ο]τε µ*ν ο"δ9 ο?τοι ε)δ τε O διδα´σκοντε τν Gν Χριστιανο/ δογµα´των Gξ(τασιν O σγκρισιν, α λλ nσπερ το/ Νεστορου Π(ρσαι, οRτω κα οmδε το/ Ιακaβου φρονFµασι προκατειληµµ(νοι Gνετυπaθησαν α βασανστω .
was impotent to resist their demand any longer. He made for himself an altar out of sticks in the desert, spread a fine cloth, set out newly baked bread, and mingled wine in a wooden chalice. Offering the gifts, he made the sign of the cross over them as he looked towards heaven, and glorified the Holy Trinity alone. Then he broke [the bread] and distributed it to them. Afterwards, they took away the cup and the cloth with reverence, as being sanctified, so that they would no longer be put to any profane use. The only thing they overlooked was the altar. Without warning a great fire fell from heaven! It struck none of them, and hurt no one, but it burned up the entire altar of sticks, and destroyed it so completely as to leave behind not even their ashes. The barbarians, given complete confidence in the man who performed the ritual by the marvel they’d seen, insisted that he ask for some gift from them in return for the liturgy. He asked that all those captured with him be released with him; his wish was granted, and he freed all his companions from their unfortunate situation. Now this man was of our persuasion only in that, when he went to church, he gathered with us, though to tell the truth he did so without realizing there was any difference between Christians. The Arabs, however, traditionally shared in the heresy of the Jacobites, who themselves give pride of place to one nature in the Lord. These Jacobites were the first to make a practice of travelling with the Arabs in the desert and ministering to them in every way. These men neither knew of, nor taught, precision about or comparison between the doctrines held by different Christian groups. Rather, they were converted by the ideas of Jacob [Baradatus], taking the imprint of these ideas without any examination, much in the way the Persians were converted by the ideas of Nestorius.
Το πανσ φου µοναχο κρ Λεοντου το Ι εροσολυµτου α ποραι πρ5 τοT µαν φσιν λ(γοντα σνθετον τ5ν Κριον %µν Ιησον Χριστ5ν
. [r ] Αλλα` τα/ α"τν α παντFσαντε α ποραι , iλγα τινα` νν Gκ πλει νων κα %µε/ α"το/ α νταπορFσωµεν, ε1πωµ(ν τε πρ5 α"το , Nτι “Ε) @µοοσιο %µ/ν τ9 κα τU Πατρ @ Χριστ5 κατα` τ*ν µαν α"το ο"σαν, :ν φατ(, γνωρζεται, κα %µε/ δηλαδ* @µοοσιοι τU Πατρ· τα` γα`ρ τU α"τU κατα` τ5 α"τ5 Nµοια, κα α λλFλοι Nµοια.” . Φσιν Gκ φσεων γεν(σθαι λ(γοντε , ε) µ9ν @µaνυµον τα/ πρaην α"τ*ν φασ, δCλον E ο]τε Θε5ν ο]τε αPνθρωπον α"τ*ν Gροσιν· ε) δ9 συνaνυµον, θα´τερον Qσται πα´ντω —ο" γα`ρ α λλFλαι συνaνυµοι Sκατ(ρα—· O οIν Θε , O αPνθρωπο Qσται µ νον κα α"τF. Ε) γα`ρ α λλFλαι αZ δο µ* συνaνυµοι, ο"δ9 τ5 τH µιD συνaνυµον, κα τH Sτ(ρK συνaνυµον Qσται· nσπερ γα`ρ τ5 1σου1 αPνισον, κα το Sτ(ρου τν 1σων αPνισον, οRτω κα τ5 α νσου 1σον, @µοω κα πρ5 τ5 lτερον αPνισον.
1
1σου] hσον a. corr. MS
OF THE ALL-WISE MONK, LORD LEONTIUS OF JERUSALEM: APORIAE AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS ONE COMPOUND NATURE i . Seeing that we’ve confronted these people’s aporiae, we’d now like to counter-propose aporiae ourselves on a few points out of many, and say to them: ‘If Christ is recognized as being consubstantial both with us and with the Father by this one substance of His that you talk about, then of course we’re consubstantial with the Father as well. Things identical with the same thing in the same respect are, after all, identical with each other.’ . They say that a nature came to be out of natures. If they say it has the same name but not the same definition as the natures that were there before, it’s clear they’re saying it’s neither God nor man. If, on the other hand, they say it has both the same name and the same definition as they do, it’ll have to be one or the other of them—for they don’t have the same name and definition as each other. It’ll therefore be exclusively either God or man. If the two natures don’t have the same name and definition as each other, then what has the same name and definition as one of them won’t have the same name and definition as the other. Just as something that’s unequal to one of a pair of equals is also unequal to the other of them, so also what’s equal to one of a pair of unequals is likewise unequal to the other of them.
. Ε) α ε σaζοιτο % lνωσι GνεργεK οIσα, ε1τουν qν οIσα α ε, τνα Sνο/; Ο" γα`ρ E % το χρ νου φσι µετα` τ5 γεν(σθαι ε"θT φθειροµ(νη, οRτω κα τC Sνaσεω % φσι · τν γα`ρ πρ τι οIσα, α6µα τH φσει κα τU χρ νW, το/ Sνουµ(νοι Gστ ν Gφ Nσον λ(γοιντο %νωµ(να. Εν τσιν οIν Sνουµ(νοι Gστ ν α ε, καθ :ν κα %νωµ(να λ(γεται α π5 τCσδε τC σχ(σεω παρωνµω . Γενοµ(νη δ9 ο?τοι, κρειττωθCνα πω τατην πα˜σαν µετα` τ*ν αγαν α"το α να´στασιν, O [v] ο"χ· O πα˜σαν µ9ν ο"χ, εhναι δ( τι λ(γεται Gν α"τH Gν τH α ναστα´σει το ∆εσπ του κρειττοµενον, κα lτερον µ* κρειττοµενον;” Ε) µ9ν οIν εhνα τι τ(λειον κα φυσικ5ν τ5 κρειττοµενον κατα` φσιν, κα lτερον τ(λειον φυσικ5ν κρειττον κατα` φσιν Gν τH αγK α"το α ναστα´σει φατ(, α"τ θεν %µ/ν )δοT τα` δο φσει συνοµολογε/τε· κα ε"χαριστα τU κοινU Πατρ Gπ τH τν α δελφν Gν +γεK α πολFψει.
. If unconfused composition reveals nothing more nor less for two natures than their union with each other, but a union is neither a nature, nor indeed a change, subtraction, or addition of a nature, how will the numerical quantity of natures united be seen to be higher or lower, so that it changes the existing two natures to three or to one, without an addition, subtraction, or change of nature? If, however, these people have the effrontery to add something greater than an unconfused union to the natures, something simply productive and indicative of nature, the onus is on them to tell us outright just what they think this something greater is. . If it’s possible to make one nature out of two natures united in an unconfused way, what different outcome is there if two natures are compounded by confusion? Either they’re saying there are two natures in Christ by reason of the word ‘unconfused’, or they’re going to find themselves forced to say just what the difference is between ‘unconfused’ and ‘confusion’ in the union of natures. If they say ‘We don’t confuse [them]!’, well, what else is the person who speaks of confusion talking about? Let them tell us. To the Nestorians likewise—who speak of two hypostases, and feel no restraint about crying out ‘We don’t make a division!’—we say this: what else proves the distinction? It’s not possible to talk about things completely and indistinguishably compounded except by saying they’re of one hypostasis and nature, nor is it possible to talk about things completely distinguished except by speaking of two natures and hypostases. . If there’s one nature of our master Jesus Christ after the union, we’d say this to them: ‘Do you then say, my friends, that the whole of this nature has in some way been made better after His holy resurrection, or not? Or do you say that not all of it’s been made better, but there’s said to be something in it that’s made better in the Master’s resurrection, and something else that isn’t made better?’ If, then, you’re saying that it’s something complete and having the character of a nature that’s improved by nature, and that it’s something else complete and having the character of a nature that does the improving by nature in His holy resurrection, then notice this: you’re instantly joining in our confession of the two natures—and thanks be to our common Father for our brothers’ restoration to health!
. ΟZ GπινοK µ νον @ρDν φα´σκοντε τ5 διττ5ν τν φσεων Gπ Χριστο µετα` τ*ν qνωσιν, λεγ(τωσαν %µ/ν, τ*ν φυσικ*ν διαφορα`ν το α ορα´του κα @ρατο Gν ΧριστU, GπινοK 1σασιν, O ο"χ, α λλ Sτ(ρω ; Ε) µ9ν οIν τH α"τH GπινοK κα τ*ν διαφορα`ν 1σασι τ*ν φυσικ*ν Gν τU α"τU, nσπερ τατην @µολογοσι, κα κενην α ναγκασθFσονται· O ε) πλα´σµα Gστ ν Gκενη, κα τατην οRτω Qχειν λ(ξουσιν. Ε) δ9 τ*ν διαφορα`ν ο"κ GπινοK, α λλ α)σθFσει @ρDν α"τH ε1ποιεν, τ5 α ρατον α)σθητ @ρDν διαβεβαιοµενοι θαυµασθFσονται. Ε) δ9 GπινοK µ9ν αPµφω @ρσιν, α λλα` τ*ν µ9ν διαφορα´ν, τH τν Jντων κριτικH κα τν +π9ρ α1σθησιν καταληπτικH, τ*ν δ9 δυα´δα τH τν µ* Jντων α ναπλαστικH, πρτα µ9ν τ µ* κα δ(κα κα ε1κοσι κα τρια´κοντα φσει α ναπλα´ττοµεν ΧριστU, α λλα` δο µ νον; Τ δ9 κα Gνοµοθ(τησεν %µ/ν πλα´σµατα δογµατζειν Gπ Χριστο το α ληθινο Θεο, κα φαντασαι µ ναι α παιωρε/σθαι τ*ν πστιν, ε)δωλολατρε/ν δ9 ο"κ Qξωθ(ν πω , α λλ Gν α"τH %µν τH ψυχH, τα` µ* Jντα α ναπλα´ττοντα , εhτα κα µυθολογοντα α"τα` το/ λοιπο/ ; Τατα γα`ρ δοθ(ντα, πα˜ν τ9 τ5 τC ε"σεβεα µυστFριον,3 κα τοT διδασκα´λου πα´ντα α6µα µιD προλFψει τH το ψεδου α βεβαι τητι διασραντα καταστρ(φει. P Ετι δ9 λεγ(τωσαν %µ/ν Jντω , ε) αsρα´ γε κατα` τατην α"τ*ν τ*ν Gπνοιαν, καθ :ν δο φασ τα` φσει , Qξεστι τιν τν πατ(ρων O α ποστ λων ε)πε/ν δ(κα τα` φσει Χριστο, O πεντFκοντα, O ο"δεν α ληθ ; Ε) µ9ν γα`ρ GξCν α ληθ ε)πε/ν, τ µ* Qφασαν τα ληθ( , κατοι τοτου ζητουµ(νου πα´λαι, π σαι αXν εhεν Χριστο αZ φσει ; Ε) δ9 µ* Qστιν +π9ρ τα` δο α ληθ GπινοCσαι τα` φσει Χριστο, δCλον E το πρα´γµατο τ*ν α λFθειαν lω τοδε το α ριθµο Qχοντο . Ε) δ9 πρα´γµατι κα α ληθεK Gπινεν ηται τ,4 [r ] ο"κ α ναπλαστικ νεν ηται, κα πεφα´ντασται ψευδ · τοτW γα`ρ διακριτ(ον απλ τα` Gπινοα , Nτι % µ9ν α ληθ* +π5 τν Jντων γεννα˜ται %µ/ν, % δ9 ψευδ* τα` µ* Jντα γεννD Gν %µ/ν. Ε)σ ν οIν α ληθ δο τH GπινοK αZ φσει Χριστο· κα γα`ρ κα %νωµ(ναι, τH
3 4
Tim. : Gπινεν ηται, τ MS
. Those who say they recognize the duality of natures in Christ after the union only in thought must tell us this: is it in thought that they recognize the natural difference between the invisible and the visible in Christ, or not in thought but in some other way? If they also recognize the natural difference in the same Christ by this same thought, logically they’ll have to confess one natural difference in exactly the same way as they confess the other—or if one is a figment of the imagination, they’ll say the other is one too. If, on the other hand, they say that it’s not in thought that they discern the difference, but by sense-perception itself, they’ll find themselves the objects of astonishment for maintaining so strongly that they observe what’s invisible by sense-perception! If, again, they discern both in thought, but understand ‘difference’ by the kind of critical understanding that can comprehend realities beyond the grasp of sense-experience, but ‘duality’ by the kind of understanding that imagines a form for non-existent things, my first response to that is to ask why we don’t then invent ten, twenty, or thirty natures for Christ, but just two? Who decreed that we should teach fictions about Christ the true God, and that the faith should hang upon mere illusions? Who decreed that we should worship as idols, not external realities of any kind, but things we invent in this soul of ours, things that have no existence at all, and then tell stories about them to everyone else? These conclusions, once granted, overturn the whole mystery of orthodoxy and all of the teachers at once, tearing them apart with the assumption of one false premise! They really must tell us whether any of the fathers or apostles could have spoken of ten, or fifty natures of Christ by means of this very thought by which they speak of two natures, or could none of them truly have done so? If it truly was possible to speak of them, why didn’t they speak the truth, since it was always their goal to discover how many natures of Christ there were? If, though, it’s impossible truly to think of more than the two natures of Christ, it’s clear that reality supports the truth so far as this number is concerned. If something’s understood in reality and truth, it isn’t apprehended in a fictitious way and falsely presented to the mind, for one ought to distinguish between thoughts in this simple way: the true thought is produced in us by things that are, but the false thought produces non-realities in us. There are, for thought, truly two natures of Christ. Being united as well, they are
GπινοK %µν ε)σ θεωρητα µ νον· τ5 γα`ρ φσει α ρατον, ο"δ Nτι 0νωτα τινι @ρατ5ν ε) µ* τH GπινοK. Αλλ Gπε α6µα νοε/ν πλεονα κα περ πλει νων νοFµατα @ νο %µν ο" δναται, α ναγκαω κα τ*ν lνωσιν α ποδιαστ(λλοντε τν %νωµ(νων, Gν τU κρνειν lνωσιν κα %νωµ(να, @ρµεν τ5ν δια´φορον Sκα´στου λ γον, κα τν %νωµ(νων lκαστον κατ )δαν σκοποντε , πο/α κα πο/α Qχει 1δια γνωρζοµεν· Ε) γα`ρ µ* οRτω γνµεν, ο"δ9 τ*ν lνωσιν νοοµεν· αRτη γα`ρ δια` τC α ντιδ σεω τν )δων καθορα˜ται. 6 Αµα δ9 πα´ντα τα` %νωµ(να, κα τα` 1δια α"τν, κα τα` τC Sνaσεω 1δια νοε/ν, ο"κ Qστιν ο"δεν µιD κα απλH φαντασK. Αναγκαω οIν τα` µ9ν διαστολα` τν %νωµ(νων κατα` φαντασαν α ναπλα´ττοµεν τH GπινοK, α λλα` κα τ δε ο" δια` τ5 ψεσασθαι τH GπινοK Gν Sαυτο/ τ*ν δια´κρισιν τν συγκειµ(νων—ο" γα`ρ ο?το eν σκοπ —α λλα` δια` τ5 τC φσεω %µν ψευδ9 , E ε)πε/ν· πα˜ γα`ρ αPνθρωπο ψεστη ,5 ο" δυναµ(νων +φ qν τα` πολλα` νοε/ν %νωµ(να, ε) µ* δια` τοδε το τρ που Gπιστµεν τH τν %νωµ(νων α ληθεK, π σα τ9 κα @πο/α )δικ Gστιν lκαστον· τοτου δ9 µ* γνωσθ(ντο , ο"δ Nτι Jντω πλεονα 0νωτα τινα καταληφθFσεται. Αγνοε/ται αPρα κα % lνωσι ο"κ οIσα, κα GπινοK ψευδε/ δια´στασι τν %νωµ(νων, mνα GπινοK α ληθε/ γνωσθH % lνωσι α"τν, λαµβα´νεται· qν γα`ρ µ νον @ρσα´ τι % α1σθησι , ο]τε ε) φσει, ο]τε ε) Sνaσει Gστ ν lν, δναται διακρνειν. . Η µα φσι , 0ν φατ(, α δελφο, µετα` τ*ν lνωσιν, O τα"τ* Qσται τU α ριθµU µιD τν πρ5 τC Sνaσεω φσεων, Gξ kν λ(γετε εhναι α"τ*ν δο φσεων, O ο"χ. Ε) µ9ν οIν ο" τα"τF, ο"χ @ α"τ5 Θε5 @ πρ5 σαρκ5 κα Gν σαρκ ,
